DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.80/2007

Radhakrishnan,

Embanath House,

Peruvemba (P.O),

Palakkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Menon)

Vs

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Palakkad Office represented by its

Manager,

10/290, G.B.Road,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(By Adv.C.Mohanram)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

Complainant's daughter had purchased a new Hero Honda Passion Motor cycle. Vehicle was insured with the opposite party under policy No.101201/31/06/01/00001830 with effect from 11/05/2006 to 10/05/2007. The policy was a comprehensive policy additionally loaded with a premium of Rs.50 under the head Personal Accident coverage. Subsequently vehicle was registered. The motor cycle was driven by petitioner's son who was having a valid driving licence and complainant's daughter used to sit a pillion rider and go to office. On 17.6.2006 the vehicle met with an accident and complainant's daughter who was sitting as a pillion rider sustained head injury and succumbed to death. Her brother, who is having valid driving licence was driving the vehicle at that time. Complainant applied for claim under personal accident coverage. But opposite party on 17/5/2007 has sent letter repudiating the claim stating the insured does not confirm with conditions 2^nd under section III of the policy. According to the complainant, vehicle was driven by his son who is having a valid driving licence. The act of opposite party is clear breach of indemnity offered by the company by accepting Rs.50/- as premium for personal accident coverage and severe deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complainant is claiming Rs.1,00,000/- being the claim amount under personal accident coverage and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.

Opposite party filed version contending the followings. Opposite party admits the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy issued, in order to get personal accident coverage for owner-driver, the following conditions are to be satisfied.

a. The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured.

b. The owner-driver is the insured named in the policy and

c. the owner-driver holds an effective licence.

According to opposite party, the insured was not holding effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident. Moreover the driver is not a registered owner of the insured and the driver is not the owner and insured named in the policy. Since there is violation of policy conditions, opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as per the policy. Immediately on receiving the claim form, opposite party issued a repudiation letter stating true facts. As the claim was repudiated on valid reason there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

Proof affidavit was filed by both parties. Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1 was marked on their respective sides.

Now the issues for consideration are;

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

2. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

Points 1 & 2: Opposite party has admitted the policy issued to the daughter of the complainant. The only reasons stated by the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant is that the insured does not hold an effective driving licence to drive the motor vehicle. As per their policy condition stated in Ext.B1, in order to get personal accident coverage for owner-driver, owner-driver should possess effective licence to drive the vehicle.

Perusing the conditions stipulated in Ext.B1, we are of the view the said conditions apply in cases where the owner and driver is one and the same persons i.e owner cum driver. That is not the case in this particular matter. Complainant's daughter is the insured and registered owner of the vehicle. Vehicle was driven by the brother of the insured who is having a valid driving licence. This is evident from Exts.A1 and A2. Hence the act of opposite party in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency of service.

In view of the above discussions we allow the complaint. Opposite party is directed

to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) being the claim amount and Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this 29^th day of April, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Driving licence

Ext.A2 – FIR

Ext.A3 – Postmortem report

Ext.A4 – Letter from opposite party repudiating the claim

Ext.A5 – True copy of the policy

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Terms and conditions of policy (marked with objection)

Costs (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.