Complaint filed on: 19-01-2017                                                      Disposed on: 28-07-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.08 /2017

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JULY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT,

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -                                                                   

                                                          Rangaswamaiah,

                                                          S/o. Late Doddaiah,

                                                          Aged about 50 years,

                                                          R/at Annenahalli village,

Oorukere post,

Tumakuru taluk

(By Advocate Sri.Srinivasa Murthy)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

The Manager,

United India Insurance Company Limited, Jayadeva Complex, BH Road, Tumakuru

(By Advocate Sri.H.M.Nagabhushan)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite party, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000=00 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 6-7-2015 and to grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant is the registered owner of the Honda Deo motor vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-EP-1670. The said vehicle was insured with the OP Insurance Company under policy No.0714003114P104091077 and it was valid from 7-9-2014 to 6-9-2015.

          The complainant submitted that, on 6-7-2015 at about 1-45 p.m. the complainant’s daughter A.R.Latha @ Nirmala along with her friend Vinutha while going to her friend’s house, one Scorpion vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MH-298 of the driver, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from their backside and dashed the complainant’s vehicle and caused the accident. In the said accident, the complainant’s daughter died on the spot due to head injuries. In this regard, Kora police have registered the case against the Scorpio vehicle driver in Cr. No.96/2015 under section 279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC.

          The complainant further submitted that, after death of the complainant’s daughter, the complainant had made the claim for the damaged vehicle and also death of his daughter. But the OP had paid compensation for damaged vehicle and not paid the compensation for the death of his daughter. At the time of accident, the complainant’s daughter was having valid driving licenceand also not violated any terms and conditions of the policy. The said policy covers, the personal accident covers for owner – driver CSI Rs.10,000,000=00 and the complainant demanded for payment of personal accident claim, but the OP did not pay the personal accident claim.Hence, on 27-12-2016 the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP and the same was served on the OP. On 4-1-2017 the OP had replied the said notice, but not paid the amount. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After service of the notice, the OPhas appeared through his counsel and filed versions contending interalia as under:

The averments made in the complaint and allegations are all not true and correct and the same are emphatically denied as false. The complainant put to strict proof of the same.

The OP submitted that, the complainant has misunderstood the personal accident cover for owner-driver incorporated in Section III of the policy last portion. This cover is subject to: (a) the owner driver is the registered owner of vehicle insured herein. (b) the owner driver is the insured named in the policy and (c) the owner driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 at the time of the accident.

The OP further submitted that, the complainant’s daughter was driving the alleged vehicle on the date of accident, the registration of the vehicle stands in the name of complainant, as the complainant’s daughter is not the registered owner of the vehicle insured with the OP, as per the condition no.1 (a) and the complainant’s daughter name is not find a place in the policy as insured, owner and driver, it will not come within the terms and conditions of the personal accident cover. Hence, the OP is not liable to pay personal accident cover amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 as claimed in the complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.  

4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.   The complainant has produced documents which were marked asEx-C1 to C13 and the OPhas produced terms and conditions of the policy. We have heard the argumentsof both parties and perused the documents and then posted the case for orders.

5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPas alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

6. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the negative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          7.On perusal of the pleadings, objection of the OP and documents produced by both the parties, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant had insured his vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-06-EP-1670 with the OP Insurance Company under policy No.0714003114P104091077 and it is valid from 7-9-2014 to 6-9-2016. It is also admitted fact that, the complainant’s daughter died in the accident. At the time of accident, the policy was in force.

          8. The main contention of the complainant is that, after the accident, the complainant had made the claim for the damaged vehicle and personal accident claim for death of his daughter. The OP had paid the compensation for damaged vehicle and not paid the personal accident claimfor the death of his daughter. The complainant’s daughter was having valid driving licence.The complainant demanded for payment of personal accident cover for owner-driver CSI of Rs.1,00,000=00, but the OP did not pay the personal accident claim.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the OP has strongly contended that,the personal accident cover for owner-driver incorporated in Section III of the policy last portion. The complainant’s daughter was driving the alleged vehicle on the date of accident, the registration of the vehicle stands in the name of complainant. The complainant’s daughter was not the registered owner of the vehicle. Further the complainant’s daughter name was not found in the policy as insured, owner and driver; it will not come within the terms and conditions of the personal accident cover owner-driver.

          10. The OP has produced insurance policy issued in the name of complainant, wherein it is mentioned in Section III- Personal Accident Cover for Owner – driver,  it reads as under:

“Section III-Personal accident cover for owner-driver

This cover to subject to

(a) The owner driver is the registered owner of vehicle insured herein.

(b) The owner driver is the insured named in the policy and

(c) The owner driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 at the time of the accident.

          11. On perusal of the said clause, it is abundantly clear that, the owner–driver is the insured named in the policy and the owner-driver is a registered owner of the vehicle insured. Admittedly, the deceased neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor was she the insured named in the policy. If that be so, the deceased is not cover under the personal accident cover owner-driver. The term “owner-driver” will mean the registered owner who is capable of driving the vehicle i.e. owner cum driver.

12. On careful reading of the case on hand, it is crystal clear that, the guidelines of the above said terms and conditions of the policy quoted by the learned counsel for the OP is aptly applicable to the present case on hands. Viewing the case of the complainant, on the background of material evidence of both parties, we are of the considered opinion that, the material evidence of OP is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant as the OP has acted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant has miserable failed to prove this point by placing clear and tangible material evidence that, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

          The complaintof the complainant ishereby dismissed. No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28^thday of July 2017).

LADY MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT