F.A.No.1027/2005   against  C.D.No.512/2003 ,  District Forum, Guntur

Between:

Kuraguntla Sita W/o.late K.Kishore,

R/o.D.No.12-9-2/30, behind RTC

Bus Stand, Prakash Nagar

Narasaraopet, Guntur District.                                                   ...Appellant/

                                                                                                          Complainant 

 And

The Branch Manager

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Branch Office-II,

Kothapet, Guntur-522 001.                                                              ...Respondent/

                                                                                                               Opp.party                                                                                                           

 Counsel for the appellant               :          M/s.P.V.Ramana    

Counsel for the respondent             :         M/s. S.Shravan Kumar.           

 CORAM:  THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

       SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE  MEMBER

                                                               AND

                          SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                           TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF  JUNE ,

      TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:  (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)

                                                            ***

     This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to set aside the dismissal order passed by the District Forum, Guntur in C.D.No.512/2003 dt.31.5.2005.

     Appellant herein is the complainant  before District Forum.  She filed complaint  under Section 12 of  Consumer Protection Act,1986  to direct the  opp.party to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-  towards  Prl.amount , interest and compensation   and to pay costs.

      The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is a resident of Narasaraopet, Guntur  and  eaking out her livelihood by working as a servant maid  in Our Lady of Health Hospital . The complainant got married with K.KIishore who is a driver by profession and also doing plumber work.  The complainant’s husband used  to visit the hospital  in  which the complainant is working   for carrying out the repairs as and when required .   The complainant’s husband is a close associate    of one Ch.Raja Reddy who is the Chruch Paster. The said Raja Reddy is the owner of the Abassador car AP 16 K 2322  and he requested the complainant’s husband to accompany him to Hyderabad by driving  the vehicle    from Narasaraopet to Hyderabad.  While driving the vehicle on 11.6.2002  at about 8.45 hours one lorry bearing no.AP 16  x 7207  coming in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said  ambassador car near Cheruvugattu , North Arch on Narketpalli, Addanki road  which is within the Yella Reddy Gudem village limits.  Due to the said accident the occupants of the car received serious bleeding injuries and Ch.Raja Reddy  who is the owner of the vehicle died on the spot.   The  complainant’s husband and other injured    were shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpalli.   The complainant’s husband died in the Kamineni Hospital on 11.6.2002 . Police authorities conducted inquest over the dead body   and also conducted post mortem.   The owner of the car Ch.Raja Reddy who is the bachelor got insured the vehicle with the opp.party and duly paid premium for an amount  of  Rs. 5,560/-.including the coverage of personal accident claim  for five persons in the car in case of death or loss of injury in an accident.   The policy was  valid from 14.9.2001 to 13.9.2002   and it is in force at the time of accident.   The complainant submitted the claim form to the opp.party with all the relevant documents on 11.9.2002  but the opp.party neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim for a  period of one year.  The complainant ultimately made a representation for her grievance before the Vigilance Cell at Chennai.  The opp.party repudiated the  claim of the complainant purely based  on presumptions and surmises and made an  endorsement that the complainant’s husband is a paid driver at the time of accident.    Alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached District Forum to direct the opp.party to  pay a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-  and to pay costs.

      The opp.party filed version contending that  in a motor accident report form submitted on behalf of the insured the deceased Kishore was shown as owner’s paid driver.  The policy  obtained by the insured Ch.Raja Reddy did not cover the paid driver against personal accident benefit  under private car endorsement no.5 and hence the personal accident benefits cannot be extended to the paid driver i.e. deceased K.Kishore  and hence he is ineligible  for personal accident benefit under the policy.   The complainant filed MVOP  before the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Guntur for compensation   amount . The complainant is not dependent  upon her husband  and she is  also working in Our Lady of Health Hospital, Narasaraopet  and she is getting the salary  of  Rs.2000/- p.m.   and  she is also having a own house  and she is not a poor lady.     The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

     The complainant filed evidence affidavit and  documents Exs.A1 to  A16. The  opp.party  also filed documents  Exs.B1 to B19 .   The District Forum   based on the evidence adduced and pleadings,  dismissed the complaint.

     Aggrieved by the  dismissal  order of the District Forum,  the complainant preferred this appeal

     The point for determination arises in this appeal is whether the order passed by the District Forum  is sustainable?

      There is no dispute that while  the husband of  the complainant driving the car on  11.6.2002 , a lorry dashed the car as a result owner of the vehicle  Ch.Raja  Reddy  died on the spot  and the driver along with other inmates  of the car also received  severe  injuries   and driver of the car died in Kamineni hospital .  Private car Insurance policy obtained for the said car was valid on the date of the accident.  Ex.B17 is the original certificate of insurance relating to vehicle bearing no.  AP.16 K 2322 . Ex.B18 is the  conditions of  private car B policy issued by the opposite party. The appellant contended that as per the policy terms and conditions  insurance company is liable to pay the policy amount. The respondent contended that the  policy does not cover the   paid   driver of the vehicle and hence the complainant is not entitled to the   insurance amount .      We have gone through  the terms and conditions of the policy .  As per clause IMT  5      the personal accident benefits cannot be extended to   the  paid driver of the car under the  policy.    On the other hand owner did not pay extra premium towards the paid driver.     As per the terms and conditions of the policy  the paid driver and also the cleaner are altogether excluded from personal accident coverage.   The respondent has relied on a decision reported in 2005 (II) CPJ 115  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs. DHARAM RAJ  wherein it was held that the policy represents a contract between the insurer and insured , the insured has to act strictly in accordance with statutory limitations  and  action of the opp.party in repudiating the claim of the complainant does not  amounts to deficiency in service.     The principle laid down in the  said case is applicable in our present case .     In our present case is concerned deceased  was a  paid driver working under the owner  while the accident occurred.  As per the terms and conditions of the policy insurance company is not liable to pay the policy amount to the complainant as the deceased was paid driver of the car .  Order of the District  Forum is a  well considered order   There are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District  Forum . 

     In the result appeal is dismissed.  In the circumstances without costs.  

                                                PRESIDENT        LADY MEMBER    MALE MEMBER

Pm*