DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  10^th day of February, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 21/10/2020    

                         CC/134/2020

1.   Vasanthakumai,

W/o late Balan,

“Koottupura”, Vattekkad Post,

Elavancherry Village, Kollangode,

Palakkad – 678 506.  

2.   Herbert,

S/o late Balan,

“Koottupura”, Vattekkad Post,

Elavancherry Village, Kollangode,

Palakkad – 678 506. 

3.   Herbert,

S/o late Balan,

“Koottupura”, Vattekkad Post,

Elavancherry Village, Kollangode,

Palakkad – 678 506. 

4.   Haridas,

S/o. Mani,

Kolappullypada, Vattekkad Post,

 Elavancherry Village, Kollangode,

Palakkad – 678 506.                                        -                       Complainants

(By Adv. K. Dhananjayan)

                                                                                    Vs

1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Head Office, 24, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014

2. Manager/Authorised Representative,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Head Office, 24, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014

3. Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Mission School Jn.,

PLI Branch Office, Soorya Complex,

Palakkad – 678 014.                                              -           Opposite parties

                   (OPs  by Adv. M/s  P. Ratnavally & Kiran J.Raj)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Essentially, this complaint revolves round the interpretation of the word “owner-driver” as stated in Exts. B1 and B3, policy schedule and policy conditions issued by the opposite parties to the 4^th complainant.
2. Complainants 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of one deceased Albert B., who met with a fatal accident while riding a motor cycle owned by the 4^th complainant. 1^st complainant is the mother and complainants 2 and 3 are the siblings of the deceased.  4^th complainant is only a proforma party.
3. Per pleadings, Albert B. died after encountering an accident, while he was riding a bike owned by the 4^th complainant. The said bike was having an Own Damage policy for Owner-Driver. When the deceased was riding the same, he was the driver and hence the legal heirs entered the shoes of the 4^th complainant, the owner-driver. But the opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainants. Hence this complaint.
4. O.P.s filed version denying any deficiency in service as the policy issued by them was only an O.D. named-policy covering the Owner cum Driver. Deceased Albert being neither the owner nor the policy holder, claim of the legal heirs were repudiated.
5. The following issues arise for consideration:

1          Whether the deceased was covered under the policy?

2.         Whether there is   deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

3.         Whether the complainants are entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

4.         Reliefs, if any?

6.         (i)         Evidence of the complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A5. Since Exts. A3 and A5 were indecipherable, the complainant was directed to produce clear copies, failing which said documents would not be relied upon. Counsel for the complainant has failed to produce the same. But, the same was marked by O.P.s  as Ext. B1.

(ii)       Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 to B6.  Exts. Marking of Exts. B4 to B6 were objected to on the ground that they were photocopies. Since this Commission is not bound by Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of any objection that the said documents are forged or fabricated or does not pertain to the facts and circumstances of this case, we overlook the objections of the complainant.

Issue No.1

7.         Per complainant, the persons insured in Exts. B1 are the owner and/or driver of the motorcycle. There is ambiguity regarding the provision “owner-driver” and hence in order to interpret Ext. B1 and B3 “contra-proferendum method” needs to be invoked. This contention is objected to by the opposite parties stating that the cover is only for owner cum driver and that there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

8.         Ext. B1 is the Motor Insurance – Motor cycle/Scooter-Liability Only Policy Schedule.

Name of the Insured is shown as Mr. Haridas. Insured Address is “S/o Mani, Vattaikkad, Elavancherry, Palakkad”. Personal Accident (PA) cover is granted only for Owner-Driver. Vehicle insured as per Ext. B1 is the motor cycle bearing registration no. KL-46-D-1969. Registered Owner of the said motor cycle is Haridas, as per Ext. A4 certificate of registration.

9.         Ext. B3 is “Section III – Personal Accident Cover For Owner-Driver”. Marking of Ext. B3 is not objected to by the complainant. Hence we presume Ext. B3 to be the terms and conditions under which the policy is issued.

                                    What the O.P. company has undertaken to cover is stated in the 1^st line of  Ext. B3 -  “The Company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle”(emphasis provided by us).

                                    Thereafter, following the clause “Nature of Injury” and 3 Proviso clauses thereunder, Ext. B3 reads as follows:

            “This cover is subject to

1. The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;
2. The owner – driver is the insured named in the policy.
3. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(not relevant)”

10.       On going through the provision of  Ext. B3 we can see that owner-driver defined as either

(1)        The registered owner of the vehicle insured herein; or

(2)        The owner-driver is the insured named in the policy.

In Ext. B1, the person insured is Mr. Haridas, the 4^th complainant.

11.       The deceased, therefore, may have driven the bike, but will not come under the ambit of ‘owner-driver’ as contemplated under Exts. B1 and B3.

            Issue No.2

12.       Since the repudiation was in accordance with the terms and condition of the policy, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  

            Issue No. 3

13.       Resultantly, we hold that the complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

Issue No. 4

14.       In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 10^th day of  February, 2023.        

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                            Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member         

         Sd/-                                                                   Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :  

Ext. A1: Copy of FIR bearing no. 0440 dated 11/10/2019

Ext. A2: Copy of PMR bearing no. PM. No. 846/19 dated 11/10/2019

Ext. A3: Copy of Policy Schedule

Ext. A4: Copy of Registration Certificate

Ext. A5: Copy of Inspection Report bg. No. 440/2019 of motor vehicle involved in accident.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext. B1:  Copy of Policy issued to the 4^th complainant.

Ext. B2:  Copy of Motor Preliminary Survey Report dated 16/8/2017

Ext. B3:  Copy of Section III of Policy conditions

Ext. B4:  Copy of FIS dated 11/10/2019

Ext. B5:  Same as Ext. A2.

Ext. B6:  Copy of print-out from E-court register regarding proceedings in O.P.(MV) 205/2020

                on the file of MACT, Palakkad.

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.