Karnataka

Gadag

CC/16/2021

Smt. Pavitra w/o Veeranna Wali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

H.B.Kanavi

06 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONBehind Tahsildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/2021
( Date of Filing : 15 Sep 2021 )
 
1. Smt. Pavitra w/o Veeranna Wali
Smt. Pavitra w/o Veeranna Wali, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Householdwork, R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple Konnur, Tq & Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
KARNATAKA
2. 2) Kumar Prithviraj S/o Veeranna Wali
R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple Konnur, Tq & Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
3. 3) Kumar Preetam S/o Veeranna Wali
R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple Konnur, Tq & Dist: Gadag.
Gadag
Karnataka
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The National Insurance Company Limited.
1st Floor Renuka Arcade Station Road, Opp. Tontadaryamatha, Gadag-582101.
Gadag
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 06 Apr 2022
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag COMPLAINT NO.16/2021 DATED 6th DAY OF APRIL-2022 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPURA, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, WOMAN MEMBER B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER Complainant/s: 1. Smt. Pavitra W/o Veeraanna Wali, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Household work, R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple, Konnur, Taluk and District: Gadag. 2. Kumar Prithviraj S/o Veeraanna Wali, Age: 5 Years, R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple, Konnur, Taluk and District: Gadag. 3. Kumar Preetam S/o Veeraanna Wali, Age: 3 Years, R/o Near Mallikarjun Temple, Konnur, Taluk and District: Gadag. (Rep. by Sri.H.B. Kanavi, Advocate) V/s Respondents :- 1. The National Insurance Company Ltd., having its branch office at 1st Floor, “Renuka Arcade”, Station Road, Opp: Tontadaryamatha, Gadag-582101, Represented by its Branch Manager, (insurer of motor cycle Bajaj Platina No.KA-26 EC/1737 at Policy No.61010131196260000697 valid from 11.06.2019 to 110.06.2024) (Rep. by Sri.S.B.Shreegiri, Advocate) JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. D.Y. BASAPUR, PRESIDENT The complainants have filed the complaint u/Sec.35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 for directing the OP to pay Rs.15,00,000/-, compensation towards mental agony and cost. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: 2. Complainant No.1 is the wife and complainants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased Veeranna who possessed motor cycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.KA-26/EC-7137. The said motor cycle had insured with OP company under Policy No.61010131196260000697 covering the period from 11.06.2019 to 10.06.2024 including additional premium in order to cover personal accident benefit for owner/rider to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. On 06.03.2020 at about 9-00 AM near Dasar Pool-Konnur, of Nargund taluk, deceased while riding the said motor cycle an accident occurred who sustained injury and later he died. Complaint registered in Crime No.32/2020 in Nargund Police Station and charge sheet filed in C.C.No.220/2020 on the file JMFC, Nargund. When complaints requesting the OP to pay the above amount, OP issued a letter dated 03.08.2020 asking to furnish DL of deceased and the same is furnished to OP. However, OP repudiated the claim on 23.10.2020 stating that, the DL particulars made out were not sufficient and came to conclusion to close as “ NO CLAIM which amounts to “DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE”. Finally, the complainant got issued notice on 01.12.2020. OP issued an evasive reply contending that, claim is closed as “ NO CLAIM ”. Hence, filed this complaint. 3. In pursuance of service of notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed objection to the complaint, as under: OP denied the various allegations in the complaint but, admitting issuance of the policy. OP contended that, in the policy under the head persons or class of persons entitle to drive : Any person including the insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license, provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and that such person satisfy the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989. Further contended that, deceased had not holding any effective driving license for riding the motor cycle and charge sheet filed for the offence punishable u/Sec.3 of the M.V. Act. Deceased had violated the conditions and rules of the policy. Accordingly, legally repudiated the claim and prays for dismiss the complaint. 4. To prove the case, complainant filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. OP examined one Sri. Umesh Bhat as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1. 5. Heard the arguments on both side. 6. The points for our consideration arose are as under: i) Whether the complainants prove that, accident has occurred and deceased Veeranna sustained grievous injury and died? ii) Whether the complainants prove that, they are entitled for the relief as sought for? iv) What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under: Point No.1: Affirmative Point No.2: Negative Point No.3: As per final order. REASONS 8. Point No.1:- Complainant No.1 Smt. Pavitra Veeranna Wali has reiterated the contents of complaint in her chief examination. She has stated that, Complainant No.1 is the wife and complainants No.2 and 3 are children of deceased Veeranna who possessed motor cycle Bajaj Platina bearing Registration No.KA-26/EC-7137. The said motor cycle was insured with OP company under Policy No.61010131196260000697 covering the period from 11.06.2019 to 10.06.2024 including additional premium in order to cover personal accident benefit for owner/rider to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-. On 06.03.2020 at about 9-00 AM near Dasar Pool-Konnur, of Nargund taluk, deceased while riding the said motor cycle an accident occurred who sustained injury and later he died. Complaint was registered in Crime No.32/2020 with Nargund Police Station and charge sheet filed in C.C.No.220/2020 on the file of JMFC, Nargund. When complainants requesting the OP to pay the above amount, OP issued a letter dated 03.08.2020 asking to furnish DL of deceased and the same is furnished to OP. However, OP repudiated the claim on 23.10.2020 stating that, the DL particulars made out were not sufficient and came to conclusion to close as “ NO CLAIM which amounts to “DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE”. Finally, the complainant got issued notice on 01.12.2020. OP issued an evasive reply contending that, claim is closed as “ NO CLAIM ”. PW-1 is not cross-examined by the OP. Ex.P-1 to 10 are FIR, complaint, charge sheet, inquest and P.M report of deceased reveal that, accident was occurred on 06.03.2020 at about 9-00 AM near Dasara Pool-Konnur village of Nargund taluk, deceased sustained fracture injury and later died. Death of Veeranna in the accident is not disputing by the OP. Hence, we answer Point No. 1 in affirmative. 9. Point No.2:- The learned counsel for complainant Sri.H.B. Kanavi vehemently argued that, deceased Veeranna was having an effective driving license as per Ex.P-16. The learned counsel for OP Sri. S.B. Shreegiri argued that, Ex.P-16 was pertaining to four wheeler vehicle, deceased was not having the effective driving license for riding the motor cycle and violated the conditions of the policy. 10. In the affidavit, PW-1 stated that, her husband was having valid and effective driving license. RW-1 has specifically stated in the affidavit and reiterated the contents of the objection filed by him. He has contended that, deceased was not having effective driving license and accordingly, claim has been repudiated. Ex.OP-1 original insurance policy bond reveals that, persons or class of persons entitle to drive : Any person including the insured, provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license, provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s license may also drive the vehicle and that such person satisfy the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule 1989. Further contended that, deceased was not holding any effective driving license for riding the motor cycle and the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable u/Sec.3 of the M.V. Act. Deceased had violated the conditions and rules of the policy. 11. Complainants mainly relying on Ex.P-16 DL, it reveals that, deceased Veeranna Wali got DL bearing No.KA 26 20080003710 issued on 26.12.2008 by RTO, Gadag (KA26), validity is till 25.12.2028. This DL is pertaining to Light Motor Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as LMV), it is not pertaining to motor cycle. Class of insurance and class of vehicle are not similar. Of course, Ex.P-16 is an effective driving license for running LMV but, not motor cycle. Having the DL by the person for class of vehicle is quite different. Merely a person riding the motor cycle and having the DL cannot be presumed that he is capable/competent to drive four wheeler vehicles vis-a-vis a person having DL for four wheeler, either passenger or goods vehicle is a competent to ride the motor cycle with gear. 12. The learned counsel for complainants relying on the decisions reported in 2010 ACJ 2510 in Srinivasagowda and another Vs. Sannamma and others wherein it is held that: “ Driver had license to drive HMV but he was driving two-wheeler scooter which hit a person walking on the roadside – Whether a person who has valid license to drive heavy motor vehicle is deemed to possess valid license to drive scooter and insurance company is liable – Held: Yes ”. Further relying on the decision reported in 2005 ACJ 1509 in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari and another wherein it is held that: “ Listing of vehicles in Section 10(2) shows that one lower down in order requires something more than what the driver is equipped with for the previous one; a person having license to drive light motor vehicle can drive a motor cycle with gears”. Per contra, the learned counsel for OP relying on a judgment passed by Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Purshottam Das Goyal on 28.08.2018 wherein it is held that: “ The driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license, the claim of complainant was repudiated”. Further, it is held that, renewal of the fake license could not cure the inherent fertility. Of course, OP has not taken the contention that, driving license of the deceased is a fake one. The main contention of the OP is that, deceased having the driving license for LMV is not a competent and effective driving license for riding the motor cycle. As per the latest decision passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.3910/2011. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs. Sri C. Sunda Raj on 03.01.2017 wherein it is held that: On careful reading of the above decision, it is clearly held that, a person having driving license for four wheel either Light Motor Vehicle – Heavy Motor Vehicle is not deemed who is competent to ride the motor cycle. The double bench decision relied on by the complainant is observed in this judgment. So the facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of this judgment are similar with case on hand. The ratio of this judgment prevails over the decision relied on by the counsel for complainant. The deceased has violated the rules and conditions of the policy. So, the decisions relied on by the counsel for complainant are not similar with the facts and circumstances of the case and not helpful to the complainants. The driver was having a license to drive light motor vehicle as defined u/Sec.2(21) of the Act. But, the accident was caused involving a motor cycle. Definitely, motor cycle is not a “ LMV ” as defined under the Act. Motor cycle is defined at sub section (27) of Section 2. Section 10 and Form 6 refers to ‘ motor cycle ’ as a different class of vehicle. Therefore, the driver of the vehicle in question has to be held as not duly authorized to drive the motor cycle. It has been referred in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2008 ACJ 1928 in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Zaharulnisha wherein it has been held that: Rider of the vehicle has no valid and effective license to drive the vehicle on the date of accident because the scootarist was possessing driving license for driving heavy motor vehicle but was found driving totally different class of vehicle. Hence, it was in violation of Sec.10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. For the above, complainants failed to prove that, deceased Veeranna was having effective and valid driving license to ride the motor cycle with gears. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity found by the act of OP regarding repudiating the claim made by the complainant. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled for the relief as sought. Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 in negative. 14. Point No.3:- In the result, we pass the following: //O R D E R// The complaint filed u/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 6th day of April-2022) , (Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil) MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER -: ANNEXURE :- EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S: PW-1: Smt. Pavitra Veeranna Wali. DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S Ex.P-1:FIR Ex.P-2: Complaint Ex.P-3: Spot Panchanama Ex.P-4: Motor Vehicle Accident Report Ex.P-5: Post Mortem Report Ex.P-6: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P-7:Statement of Nissarahammed Khaji Ex.P-8: Statement of Mustakahammedgouse Khaji Ex.P-9: Statement of Kariyappa Venkappa Dambala Ex.P-10: Charge Sheet Ex.P-11:Final reminder dated 23.10.2020 Ex.P-12: Legal Notice Ex.P-13: Postal Acknowledgement Ex.P-14: Postal receipt Ex.P-15:Personal Accident Claim Form Ex.P-16:Extract of Driving License EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs: PW-1: Sri. Umesh Bhat DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs: Ex.OP-1: Policy Copy (Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapura) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil) MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil]
MEMBER
 

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.