D.O.F:06/03/2021
D.O.O:28/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.61/2021
Dated this, the 28th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
1. Mohammed Haneefa, aged 51 years
S/o. Hassainar
Pachilampara House, P.O Uppala
Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District. : Complainants
2. Ayisha, aged 42 years
W/o Mohammed Haneefa
Pachilamara House, P.O Uppala
Manjeshwar Taluk, Kasaragod District.
(Adv: A. Gopalan Nair)
And
The Managing Director,
Magma HDI, General Insurance Company
1st Floor, Jain Tower, Power House : Opposite Party
NH Bypass, Vytilla
Eranakulam, Kerala - 682019
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
This complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection act 1986
The complainants are the parents of the deceased Rasheed Mosahil. The complainants son Rasheesd Mosahil died in a bike accident on 20/05/2020 at 1.15 am at Chavakkad Ponnani public road. The Peumpadappu police had registered the crime No/200/2020 and filed final report before the JFCM Court Ponnani . That Rasheed Mosahil was driving the Motor Cycle bearing registration No: KL 14- Y- 7672 along with pillion rider Jamal from Ponnani side to Chavakkad. The motor cycle had hit with a lorry bearing No: KL – 58 M – 6805. Which was parking on the west side of the Ponnani Chavakkad road at Puthuruthi. Soon after the accident both of them were taken to Thrissur Aswani Hospital, but Rasheed Mosahil died during the journey to hospital. The pillion rider Mr. Jamal had sustained grievous injurious. The Perumpadappu police registered the crime under section 279/338 and 304 (A) of IPC .the above said motor cycle was insured with the Opposite Party and Rasheed Mosahil was the registered owner of the said motor vehicle. The motor vehicle had been valid insurance policy at the time of accident. The policy No: P0020300027/4113/132489 had the third party liability along with the personal accident policy to the owner cum driver. Therefore the insured is entitled to get the personal accident coverage of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Therefore the complainant is seeking a personal accident coverage of Rs. 15,00,000/- with cost this complaint.
Notice to Opposite Party served but not turned up. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination Ext A1 to A5 marked.
The main question raised for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
The case of the complainant is that his son Rasheed Mosahil died in a bike accident occurred at Chavakkad Ponnani public road on 20/05/2020. And the Permpadappu Police as registered the case. As per the records the vehicle had valid insurance at the time of accident. As per the insurance policy contract between the Opposite Party and dismissed insured is entitled to get the personal accident coverage for Rs. 15,00,000/- . Ext A1 is the true copy of the insurance policy Dt: 19/12/2019. Ext A2 is the true copy of the temporary certificate of registration issued by the RTO Kasaragod. Ext A3 is the postmortem report from medical college Thrissur, Ext A4 is the certificate copy of the FIR in crime no 200/2020 Dt 22/05/2020, Ext A5 is the final report in crime No: 200/2020 of Perumpadappu Police station 20/10/2020. In Ext A5 final report prepared by Perumpadappu police station it is stated that the driving license of the deceased is produced with other documents by the complainant on enquiry. The complainant’s son Rasheed Mosahil had no valid driving license during the period of accident. The commission carefully gone through the materials on record and affidavit. Ext A2 is the temporary certificate of registration certificate as per which the registration is valid from 21/12/20219 to 20/01/2020. Therefore said accident is occurred on 20/05/2020. So its clear from the documents that at the time of accident the vehicle had no valid registration certificate and no driving license. One of the important conditions in Ext A1 policy is that the person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and effective learners license is also sufficient to drive the vehicle and that such person should satisfy the requirements of rule 3 of the central motor vehicle rule 1989. But in this case the deceased Rasheed Mosahil who drive the vehicle motor cycle had no effective learners license and the vehicle had no valid registration at the time of accident. The motor cycle bearing Reg: KL -14 Y-7672 was ridden by Muhammed Mosahil died after on a bike accident. The pillion rider Mr. Jamal had sustained grievous injuries. The above said motor cycle was insured with Opposite Party and the deceased Rasheed Mosahil was the registered owner of the motor vehicle. It appears that the complainant’s son driven the vehicle against the existing Motor vehicle act and rules. The complainants failed to prove any service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party by adducing reliable evidence. Hence this commission is not in a position to encourage this type of complaints.
Hence this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Copy of the insurance policy Dt: 19/12/2019
A2- Copy of the temporary certificate of registration
A3- Postmortem report from Medical College Thrissur
A4- Certificate copy of the FIR
A5- Final report prepared by Perumpadappu Police station
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
