Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

247/2014

K.Ramya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Service centre(Motor Claims) - Opp.Party(s)

R.C.Manoharan

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  26.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY THE 26^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.247/2014

 

 

K.Ramya,

W/o. Late John Mathew,

S.3, Crimson Villa, 2^nd Floor,

No.35, Alagiri Nagar Main Road,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Service Centre (Motor Claims)

Oriental House, IInd Floor,

No.115, Broadway, Chennai- 600 108.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 26.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.C.Manoharan

Counsel for Opposite Party                  : Mr.N.Maheswaraiah

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN10AB9011 and is covered by the Opposite Parties vehicle policy No.412000/31/2011, 14197, dated 03.02.2011. The Insurance cover on the above vehicle is fully covered from 12.00 noon on 03.02.2011 to midnight of 02.02.2012. The above policy provided with risk coverage under section 11-1(i) and U/s.11-1 (ii) and P.A.Cover U/s III for registered owner cum driver. The above said vehicle was involved in an accident on 28.12.2011 driven by the husband of the Complainant. Due to the accident the Complainant husband died on 11.01.2012. The accident relating to fatal of Complainant’s husband was registered as FIR on 10.01.2012.  On 01.08.2014, she preferred a claim relating to accidental death of the accident with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party in their letter dated 19.08.2014 repudiated the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the vehicle is not the owner. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party having received a premium and issued with insurance policy specifically covering both owner and driver and they cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle is not the owner. It is clear violation of the Insurance Policy which is beneficial legislation. Therefore the action of the Opposite Party goes without any spec of doubt, is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which Opposite Party  is liable to pay compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          It is true that the Complainant had taken a policy from the Opposite Party for her new motor cycle BAJAJ PULSAR vide policy No.412000/31/2011/14197 for a period of one year. The period of policy is from 03.02.2011 to 12.02.2012. The Complainant was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that  the Motor Cycle belongs to the Complainant and the  same was driven by her husband Mr.John Mathew at the time of accident and who dies at the time of accident. The policy issued by the Opposite Party covered Personal Accident cover under section – III of the policy provides compensation for death of the OWNER-DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE only. In this accident the diseased was not the owner of the Insured Vehicle; the Complainant is only the owner of the vehicle. Under the circumstances the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant both in terms of Motor Vehicles Act and also as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is the owner of the BAJAJ PULSAR TN10AB 9011 and the said vehicle was insured with the 2^nd Opposite Party, Ex.A2 is the policy issued for the period 03.02.2011 to 02.02.2012 and the said vehicle met with an accident on 28.12.2011 driven by the Complainant husband and subsequently died on 11.01.2012 and in respect of the accident Ex.A4 FIR was registered.

          5. Admittedly on the date of accident the vehicle was covered under the policy Ex.A2. The Complainant made claim sent under Ex.A8 to the Opposite Party for issuance of claim form and the Opposite Party did not furnish the claim form and repudiated under Ex.A9 letter stated that policy provides compensation for the death of the owners of the vehicle and in this case the vehicle is owned by the Complainant and not by her husband and hence they are not in a position to entertain the claim.

          6. Ex.B1 terms and conditions of the policy. The terms and conditions for the Complainant vehicle provide personal accident cover for owner driver only.  The Complainant is only a owner. The Complainant husband who died in the accident is not an owner at the time of alleged accident further owner damages claim only for owner. Further in this case the diseased is not owner of the vehicle and the Complainant is only the owner and therefore the Complainant is not entitled to claim damages claim.

          7. The Complainant contended that as per Ex.B1 terms and conditions section II the Complainant is entitled maintain claim liabilities to 3^rd parties. The husband of the Complainant cannot be treated as a 3^rd party who had driven the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. Therefore the Complainant is not entitled for any claim and the Opposite Party have rightly informed the Complainant that they are not in a position to entertain the claim preferred by the Complainant and in view of the same the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

 

08. POINT NO :2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 26^th   day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 15.11.2000                   Driving License – Xerox

Ex.A2 dated 03.02.2011                   Insurance Policy – Xerox

Ex.A3 dated 08.02.2011                   Registration Certificate

Ex.A4 dated 10.01.2012                   FIR – Xerox

Ex.A5 dated 11.01.2012                   Doctors’ Certificate – Xerox

Ex.A6 dated 27.02.2012                   Death Certificate – Xerox

Ex.A7 dated 15.05.2012                   Police Certificate – Xerox

Ex.A8 dated 01.08.2014                   Claimant’s Representation – Xerox

Ex.A9 dated 19.08.2014                   Letter of Repudiation – Xerox

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Terms and conditions of the policy

Ex.B2 dated 08.02.2011                   Policy Schedule

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT