Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1277

Harbans Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.1277 of 2011                                                  

Date of institution  :    24.08.2011   

Date of decision     :    06.02.2015

 

1.      Harbans Kaur widow of Ram Singh son of Kartar Singh;

2.      Amarjit Kaur,

3.      Karamjit Kaur,

4.      Gurmail Kaur,

5.      Jaswinder Singh, (children of late Ram singh s/o Kartar Singh)

          Residents of VPO Bhodipura, Near Jalal, District Bathinda.

…….Appellants/Complainants

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, The Mall,     Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.

2.      The Bathinda Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. Branch Office/Head    Office, Opposite Head Post Office Civil Lines, Bathinda,          through its Branch Manager/Senior Manager.

                                                      …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 10.05.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.

Quorum:- 

          Mr. Baldev Singh Sekhon,  Presiding Member.

                   Mr. H. S. Guram,  Member.                                     

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            : None (By post)

          For the respondent No. 1 : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.

          For the respondent No. 2 : Ex-parte.

 

 

SH. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER :

 

                    This appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants (here in after called this complainant), the legal heirs of deceased Ram Singh against, the order dated 05.10.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, “District Forum”), vide which their complaint against the respondents/opposite parties (here in after called the OPs) was dismissed.

2.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased Ram Singh was having a saving bank account No. 1208LF852 with OP No.2 which purchased a Personal Accident Insurance Policy, bearing no. 20201/47/09/61/000033 from OP No. 1 under which Ram Singh was insured fro Rs.1,00,000/-. OP No.2 used to deduct the amount of premium from his account and to pay to the OP no.1. Unfortunately, Sh. Ram Singh died on 31.10.2009, in an accident when he was returning to his village Bhodipura, on his tractor and suddenly the hub of the tractor broke down, and Sh. Ram Singh fell down from the tractor in front of the rear left tyre of the tractor trailer. He was taken for treatment to the hospital but, he died on the way. Intimation regarding the accidental death of Sh. Ram Singh (here in after called the DLA) was given to PS Dayalpura vide DDR No. 22 31.07.2009. Similarly, intimation regarding the accident was also given to both the opposite parties. All the requisite formalities were also completed by the complainants for sanctioning their insurance claim and OP No.2 forwarded their claim to OP No. 1 vide letter No. 500/10 dated 22.09.2010. However, OP No. 1 repudiated the claim, on the ground that at the time of accident, DLA was not holding a valid driving licence to drive his tractor and, therefore, OP No.1 was not liable to pay the insurance claim. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum.
3.           Opposite parties filed their joint written statement pleading there in that on receiving the intimation regarding the death of DLA, they demanded requisite documents, including driving licence of DLA, from the complainants for settlement of the claim. When these documents were got verified, it was found that DLA met with an accident while driving his tractor without having a valid driving licence to do so. As such, DLA not only violated of the Motors Vehicle Act, 1988, but also the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the accidental death claim was rightly repudiated by the OP No.1.
4.           Parties led their evidence by way of documents and affidavits before District Forum which, after going through the same, dismissed the claim.
5.           Aggrieved by this order, the complainants have come up in appeal on the ground that they successfully proved on record that the DLA was very much competent to drive his tractor as he was driving the same for the last more than 25 years, and that he never caused any accident. It was also submitted that DLA was holding a valid driving licence but its particulars were not remembered by them. It was also submitted that the driving licence of DLA might have been lost during accident and the complainants had no source to produce the particulars of the driving licence. Moreover, accident was not caused because DLA was not holding valid driving licence. Rather, it happened suddenly due to the breaking of the hub of the tractor. Thus, the DLA was not responsible for the accident in which he died. The onus to proof the cause of accident was upon the Insurance Company. Since the accident did not occur due to negligent driving of DLA, the insurance claim could not have been repudiated. Acceptance of the appeal as well as their complaint and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6.           We have thoroughly gone through pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1  as none was present on behalf of the appellants and the respondent no.2 was proceeded ex-parte.
7.           Admittedly, OP No.2 obtained Group Jante personal accident insurance policy (Ex.R-2) from OP No.1 and for its account holders, including the DLA. He died accidentally on 31.07.2009  during the subsistence of policy while driving his tractor. Apparently, insurance claim, filed by complainant after death of DLA by accident, was covered under the policy but the OP No.1 repudiated the claim, vide their letter dated 22.09.2010 (Ex.C-4/R-3) on the following grounds:-

"Insured Ram Singh died while driving the tractor and he had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, we are unable to settle the claim in the absence of the D.L. and claim filed as "No Claim". Kindly bear our limitations please."

The opposite party no.1 has proved on record the policy document along with its terms and conditions as Ex.R-2. The complainants have failed to supply the copy of driving licence of DLA to OP No.1 or to produce before District Forum.

10.              The contention of the complainants that, DLA was competent to drive the tractor as he had been driving the same for the last 25 years and had never caused an accident, is not tenable because the only proof of competence of a person to drive a particular vehicle is the driving licence issued by the competent Licencing Authority. The other contention of the complainants that in the absence of the particulars of the driving held by DLA, they were not in a position to produce the same also is not legally tenable as it was for them to prove that DLA was competent to drive the tractor.

11.              In view of the above findings, it is held that the DLA was not holding a valid driving licence to drive his tractor at the time of accident which led to his accidental death. Thus, he was not  driving his tractor in violation of the Provisions of the Motors Vehicle Act, but he also violated the provision 4(e) of the policy (Ex.R-2) that provides as under:-

"Provisions

Provided always that the Company shall not be liable under this policy for:

4. Payment of compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured from

(e) Arising or resulting from insured committing any breach of the law criminal intent."

12.              Accordingly, the appeal of the complainants, which is devoid of any merit, is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.

13.              The arguments in this case were heard on 29.01.2015

 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                        (SH. BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                            PRESINDING MEMBER

 

 

                                                                      (SH. H. S. Guram)

                                                                            MEMBER     

February         06,2015