Order:
1. This complaint is filed by the complainants U/Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the first Opposite Party to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the interest of justice.
2. The material averments of the complaint are as follow:
The complainants are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Gujja Balraju who died in motor cycle accident on 15.06.2011. On 15.06.2011, the said Balraju was proceeding from Yadagirigutta on his motor bike bearing No.AP 24 AA 0695. At about 11:45 p.m. at Reddy Sathram, a pig came across the road and consequently the deceased dashed the same and fell on the left side of the road and sustained head injury. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital of Bhongiri in 108 Ambulance. Thereafter, he was asked to go to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. He died at about 6 a.m. when he was being taken to Secunderabad. His motor cycle was damaged and the same was seized by the police of Yadagirigutta. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint with the police of Yadagirigutta who registered crime No.109/2011 U/Sec 304-A IPC. After due investigation, the police referred the case as abated. The motor cycle of the deceased was insured with Opposite Party No.1 covering the risk of personal accident from 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011. The complainants submitted all necessary documents and lodged a claim with the Opposite Party No.1. But the Opposite Party No.1 kept quiet without giving any response. The complainants got issued a legal notice dt.08.05.2012 and the same was received by Opposite Party No.1 on 14.05.2012. The Opposite Party No.1 got issued a belated reply on 11.07.2012 without paying the compensation. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay the compensation with costs.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 filed the Written Version and admitted that the motor cycle of the deceased was insured with their company covering the period from 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011. The said policy was issued subject to the terms and conditions and limitations thereof. One G.Bhaskar lodged a claim before their company that the deceased died in a road accident while proceeding to Mallapur from Yadagirigutta. After receiving the claim, their company addressed a letter dt.20.01.2012 requesting the insured to produce the vehicle for inspection and also submit the claim form with RC of the vehicle and the driving license of the deceased with pass book first page for processing the claim. There was no response from the complainants. Thereafter, their company also addressed another letter dt.10.02.2012 with a request to produce the above documents as early as possible. To this letter also, there was no response. Therefore, their company waited till 16.03.2012 and sent a letter closing the claim for non-submission of the material documents. They also gave a reply to the counsel for the complainants stating the above facts. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of their company. The complainants have not filed the driving license of the deceased along with the complaint. The complainants are entitled to claim the compensation only when they produced the driving license of the deceased in accordance with the provisions of Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule 1989. There is no valid and effective driving license to the deceased at the time of the alleged accident. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The points for consideration in this case are:
1) Whether there is any ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of the first Opposite Party?
2) To what relief?
5. The first complainant filed her Evidence Affidavit and got Ex.A1 to A7 marked. On the other hand, the Senior Executive of Opposite Party No.1 filed his Evidence Affidavit and Ex.B1 to B7 are marked on their side. The Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.1) also summoned RTA official and examined him as their witness. The report issued by the Transport Department is marked as Ex.C1.
6. The learned counsel for the complainants filed his Written Arguments and relied upon the following decisions:-
-a) Badavath Janna Bai Vs Afsari Begum and another 2013 ACJ 2539.
-b) New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Munagada Chinni Kumari and others 2013 ACJ 2560.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 filed his Written Arguments and cited the following decisions:-
-i) Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Another 1999 (8) SC 640.
-ii) Revision Petition No.408 of 2010 in between Jai Prakash Goyal Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on the file of the Hon’ble National Commission at New Delhi.
-iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Om Prakash Jain Civil Appeal No.6248/2009 on the file of our Hon’ble Supreme Court.
-iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saheb Singh Civil Appeal No.4539/2009 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
7. Point No.1: It is not in dispute that the deceased Balraju was the owner of the motor cycle which was involved in the accident and the said vehicle was also insured with Opposite Party No.1 covering the period from 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011. Ex.A2 shows that the father of the deceased gave a complaint to the police of Yadagirigutta on 16.06.2011 when his son died in the early hours. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR and it shows that the police of Yadagirigutta registered the crime U/Sec 304-A IPC. Ex.A3 is the copy of PM Report which discloses that the deceased died mainly due to head injury. The above documents clearly go to show that the deceased died as he sustained head injury in the accident while he was proceeding on his motor cycle on the night of 15.06.2011. Now the only and main contention raised by the Insurance Company (Opposite Party No.1) is that the complainants are not entitled to claim the compensation as the deceased had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident to drive the motor bike. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the complainants did not produce either the original or the copy of the license of the deceased. As the initial burden is on the Insurance Company, they summoned the RTA official who has been examined as a witness on their behalf. He was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the complainants. He brought the report issued by their Department and the same is marked as Ex.C1. He categorically stated that they verified the manual record and also in the system before issuing Ex.C1 report. It appears that the complainants informed to the Insurance Company that the deceased had the driving license vide No.12846/HW/2003. It is mentioned in Ex.C1 report that the said number is not found in the record. No doubt, the Transport Department deputed their Junior Assistant for giving evidence before this Forum after due authorization. It is stated by the Junior Assistant that they converted the entire manual record into the system from April 2003 onwards. Hence, the Insurance Company adduced evidence by examining the Junior Assistant of RTA office to show that the deceased had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. There is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the complainants to disprove the same. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainants, their Lordships held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation when they failed to adduce any such evidence. Since the Insurance Company summoned the RTA official and adduced some evidence, their initial burden is discharged. Hence, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the complainants are not applicable to the present case. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, it was observed that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation when the deceased had no valid and effective driving license. Moreover, Ex.A4 policy clearly goes to show that the insured is entitled to claim the amount only when he holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident. The said policy was issued subject to the above condition. The Insurance Company also filed the copies of their letters which are marked as Ex.B3 to B5 to show that they asked the deceased for production of the material documents to settle their claim. They also got issued a reply notice under Ex.B6 to the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainants under Ex.A5. It is the duty of the complainants to submit all the required documents before claiming the insurance amounts. The complainants failed to do so in the present case. When the complainants failed to produce the copy of the driving license of the deceased, they are not entitled to claim the insurance amounts. Evidently, the Insurance Company closed the claim when the claimants failed to submit the material papers. Hence, there is no ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of the Insurance Company.
8. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants For Opposite Party No.1
Affidavit filed Affidavit filed
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants
Ex.A1 – Copy of FIR dt.16.06.2011
Ex.A2 – Copy of Complaint dt.16.06.2011
Ex.A3 – Copy of Post Mortem Report dt.16.06.2011
Ex.A4 – Motor Vehicle Cover Note
Ex.A5 – Legal Notice dt.08.05.2012
Ex.A6 – Letter dt.21.01.2010
Ex.A7 – Reply Notice dt.11.07.2012
Exhibits marked for the Opposite Party No.1
Ex.B1 – Certificate cum Policy Schedule
Ex.B2 – Letter dt.26.07.2013
Ex.B3 – Letter dt.20.01.2012
Ex.B4 – Letter dt.10.02.2012
Ex.B5 – Letter dt.16.03.2012
Ex.B6 – Reply Notice dt.11.07.2012
Ex.B7 – Letter dt.31.08.2013
Ex.C1 – Report issued by R.T.A
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
