The Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan V/S Sahera Parveen W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/75

Sahera Parveen W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.S. Patil

18 Mar 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/75

Sahera Parveen W/o. Late Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan The Branch Manager, Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Bangalore The Manager, Sriran General Insurnace Company Ltd., Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sahera Parveen against Opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay the personal accident benefit of her husband amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and cost and for Rs. 25,000/- towards traveling and other expenses. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband Allabakasha @ Md. Baksha was the owner cum driver and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 26/U5915 it was insured with opposite No. 1 & 2 Insurance Company and Insurance policy was in force from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 10003/31/09/016187. On 29-11-09 on Gajendragad- Ron Public Road at about 7-00 PM, when her husband was driving the said lorry it was met with an accident and in the said accident her husband died. The lorry badly damaged, police complaint was filed under Crime No. 138/09 before Gajendragad PS and thereafter, she intimated the fact of accident to the opposites Insurance Company. She filed claim petition with all necessary records through Opposite No-3 and requested for to grant the personal accident benefit amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- but Opposites even in spite of several, oral and written requests not settled her claim, thereafter this complaint was filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite No-3 is placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by admitting the ownership of Allabaksha coverage of Insurance policy, accident and death of the husband of the complainant etc., It is contended by them that, neither the complainant nor any of the heirs of the deceased have not lodged any claim for death of the owner cum driver and not submitted any documents in this regard. No claim has been registered before the Opposites immediately after the accident. Further it is contended that, the deceased/insured was not having valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle involved in the above complaint which is a breach of policy condition. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits. Further it is contented that, the complainant came to Forum with malafide intention to get monetary benefit by suppressing the real facts, she is not a consumer, the consumer complaint filed by her is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the accident took place at Gajendragad and the policy has also not issued at Raichur and the deceased was a resident of Andhra Pradesh and it denied all other allegations and prayed for to dismissal of the complaint among other grounds with costs. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposites.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Legal Officer of the Sriram Insurance Company was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. Some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is the wife of deceased Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha who was the owner cum driver of the lorry bearing No. AP26/U5915. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry was insured with opposite Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company for a period from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 100063/31/09/016187. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry met with an accident on 29-11-09 in between Gajendragad Ron Public Road while Insurance Policy was in force. 4. It is also undisputed fact that, in the said accident complainants husband Allabaksha died. 9. In view of the said undisputed facts between the parties We have not referred related documents of the parties, in respect of accident, vehicle, Insurance policy. 10. The first contention of opposite No. 1 & 2 in resisting this complaint is that, neither the complainant nor any one of the relative of deceased have lodged any claim before the opposites and have not submitted any documents including claim form in order to settle the claim of personal accident benefit. The Insurance for the personal accident benefit to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- was covered vide policy Ex.P-16. On perusal of Ex.P-1, P-2, P-4, and Ex.P-6 it is very much clear that, the complainant has made several requests to settle the claim before the Respondents. Hence the say of the Respondents in this regard holds no good. However, these facts are not that much of importance for our purpose, but next main contention of the Insurance Company regarding valid Driving licence of the deceased at the time and date of accident is much more importance for us to consider the claim of the complainant under this complaint for this documents Ex.P-14 driving licence of deceased and Ex.P-15 RC Book of the vehicle in question are material to see as to whether, the present complaint is maintainable. 11. As per the case of Insurance Company opposite Nos. 1 to 3 the deceased was driving the vehicle on the date and time of the accident without having valid driving licence to run the vehicle in question which is a breach of policy condition consequently this complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits. In this regard we have carefully observed the Ex.P-14 Driving licence and Ex.P-15 RC Book. On perusal of Ex.P-14 Driving licence the deceased was having driving licence to run the LMV only. In this regard at Page No.9 on 24-06-10 the RTO has clearly endorsed the same. Apart from that in the same Ex.P-14 at Page No.6 & 7, we have seen some endorsement wherein, at Page No.6 one Tick ( ) mark is appearing before the motor cycle with gear and at Page No.7 we have observed on the left side as The licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle is valid from 24-06-2000 to 23-06-2020. Apart from this there is no other endorsement is found in this Ex.P-14 this would clearly goes to show that, the driver of the vehicle on the time and date of accident is having only LMV driving licence. 12. Further on perusal of Ex.P-15 i.e, RC Book pertaining to the vehicle in question of the deceased reveals under the head of detailed description at Point No-20 unladed weight as 2800 and at Point No-22 Gross weight of the vehicle as 8770 Kgs. No doubt the vehicle in question is a lorry and a transport vehicle as admitted by the complainant if, the driver who wants to drive such transport vehicle he should have HMV driving licence. Because driver who holds LMV licence is entitled to drive transport vehicle whose unladed weight and gross weight should not be more than 7500 Kgs. But here in this case, the gross weight of the vehicle is 8770 as stated supra, hence the driving licence of the deceased is not according to the Indian Motor Vehicle Act. So in this regard we have refereed section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act which defines Light Motor Vehicle as: a Transport vehicle or Omni bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a Motor Car or Tractor or road-roller the un-laden weight of any which does not exceed 7500 Kilograms. So the contention of the Respondent in this regard holds good. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the Insurance Company is right enough to say that, the deceased has violated the policy condition, consequently this complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits from the Insurance Company., accordingly we are of the view that, complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by any one of the opposites and thereby she is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint., accordingly we answered Point Nos-1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-03-2011) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sahera Parveen against Opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to pay the personal accident benefit of her husband amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and cost and for Rs. 25,000/- towards traveling and other expenses. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband Allabakasha @ Md. Baksha was the owner cum driver and insurer of lorry bearing No.AP 26/U5915 it was insured with opposite No. 1 & 2 Insurance Company and Insurance policy was in force from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 10003/31/09/016187. On 29-11-09 on Gajendragad- Ron Public Road at about 7-00 PM, when her husband was driving the said lorry it was met with an accident and in the said accident her husband died. The lorry badly damaged, police complaint was filed under Crime No. 138/09 before Gajendragad PS and thereafter, she intimated the fact of accident to the opposites Insurance Company. She filed claim petition with all necessary records through Opposite No-3 and requested for to grant the personal accident benefit amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- but Opposites even in spite of several, oral and written requests not settled her claim, thereafter this complaint was filed by her for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite No-3 is placed Ex-parte. 4. Opposite No-1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by admitting the ownership of Allabaksha coverage of Insurance policy, accident and death of the husband of the complainant etc., It is contended by them that, neither the complainant nor any of the heirs of the deceased have not lodged any claim for death of the owner cum driver and not submitted any documents in this regard. No claim has been registered before the Opposites immediately after the accident. Further it is contended that, the deceased/insured was not having valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle involved in the above complaint which is a breach of policy condition. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits. Further it is contented that, the complainant came to Forum with malafide intention to get monetary benefit by suppressing the real facts, she is not a consumer, the consumer complaint filed by her is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the accident took place at Gajendragad and the policy has also not issued at Raichur and the deceased was a resident of Andhra Pradesh and it denied all other allegations and prayed for to dismissal of the complaint among other grounds with costs. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposites.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Legal Officer of the Sriram Insurance Company was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked. 8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. Some of the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties are:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is the wife of deceased Allabaksha @ Md. Baksha who was the owner cum driver of the lorry bearing No. AP26/U5915. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry was insured with opposite Nos. 1 to 3 Insurance Company for a period from 06-12-08 to 05-12-09 vide Policy bearing No. 100063/31/09/016187. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said lorry met with an accident on 29-11-09 in between Gajendragad Ron Public Road while Insurance Policy was in force. 4. It is also undisputed fact that, in the said accident complainants husband Allabaksha died. 9. In view of the said undisputed facts between the parties We have not referred related documents of the parties, in respect of accident, vehicle, Insurance policy. 10. The first contention of opposite No. 1 & 2 in resisting this complaint is that, neither the complainant nor any one of the relative of deceased have lodged any claim before the opposites and have not submitted any documents including claim form in order to settle the claim of personal accident benefit. The Insurance for the personal accident benefit to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- was covered vide policy Ex.P-16. On perusal of Ex.P-1, P-2, P-4, and Ex.P-6 it is very much clear that, the complainant has made several requests to settle the claim before the Respondents. Hence the say of the Respondents in this regard holds no good. However, these facts are not that much of importance for our purpose, but next main contention of the Insurance Company regarding valid Driving licence of the deceased at the time and date of accident is much more importance for us to consider the claim of the complainant under this complaint for this documents Ex.P-14 driving licence of deceased and Ex.P-15 RC Book of the vehicle in question are material to see as to whether, the present complaint is maintainable. 11. As per the case of Insurance Company opposite Nos. 1 to 3 the deceased was driving the vehicle on the date and time of the accident without having valid driving licence to run the vehicle in question which is a breach of policy condition consequently this complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits. In this regard we have carefully observed the Ex.P-14 Driving licence and Ex.P-15 RC Book. On perusal of Ex.P-14 Driving licence the deceased was having driving licence to run the LMV only. In this regard at Page No.9 on 24-06-10 the RTO has clearly endorsed the same. Apart from that in the same Ex.P-14 at Page No.6 & 7, we have seen some endorsement wherein, at Page No.6 one Tick ( ) mark is appearing before the motor cycle with gear and at Page No.7 we have observed on the left side as The licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle is valid from 24-06-2000 to 23-06-2020. Apart from this there is no other endorsement is found in this Ex.P-14 this would clearly goes to show that, the driver of the vehicle on the time and date of accident is having only LMV driving licence. 12. Further on perusal of Ex.P-15 i.e, RC Book pertaining to the vehicle in question of the deceased reveals under the head of detailed description at Point No-20 unladed weight as 2800 and at Point No-22 Gross weight of the vehicle as 8770 Kgs. No doubt the vehicle in question is a lorry and a transport vehicle as admitted by the complainant if, the driver who wants to drive such transport vehicle he should have HMV driving licence. Because driver who holds LMV licence is entitled to drive transport vehicle whose unladed weight and gross weight should not be more than 7500 Kgs. But here in this case, the gross weight of the vehicle is 8770 as stated supra, hence the driving licence of the deceased is not according to the Indian Motor Vehicle Act. So in this regard we have refereed section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act which defines Light Motor Vehicle as: a Transport vehicle or Omni bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a Motor Car or Tractor or road-roller the un-laden weight of any which does not exceed 7500 Kilograms. So the contention of the Respondent in this regard holds good. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the Insurance Company is right enough to say that, the deceased has violated the policy condition, consequently this complainant is not entitled for any monetary benefits from the Insurance Company., accordingly we are of the view that, complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by any one of the opposites and thereby she is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint., accordingly we answered Point Nos-1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-03-2011) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.