Haryana

StateCommission

A/801/2015

PALI DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.NARA

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.801 of 2015

Date of Institution: 08/22.09.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 28.10.2016

 

1.      Palli Devi aged about 45 years wife of Late Shri Harbans Lal,

2.      Sunil Kumar aged about 27 years son of Late Shri Harbans Lal,

3.      Sangeeta aged about 25 years daughter of Late Shri Harbans Lal,

4.      Usha aged about 23 years daughter of Late Shri Harbans Lal,

All residents of village Ganganpur, Post Office-Holi, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Ltd. at IInd Floor,Triloki Chambers, Municipal committee Road, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, through its’ Divisional Manager.                       

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                                                                           

Present:              Shri Ajay Nara, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Shri Ram Avtar, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

It was alleged by the complainants that Harbans Lal (deceased life assured DLA) husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos.2 to 4 was working as a driver on tractor bearing registration No.HR-71-7160 owned by Sh. Surinder Kumar.  Due to accident, he died on 26.12.2010.  DDR No.09 dated 27.12.2010 was lodged with police station Mullana.   They submitted that during the course of employment with Surinder Kumar he was also insured for Rs.Two lacs with OP-insurance company for Owner-Driver CSI for the period 10.12.2010 to 09.12.2011.  In this way the driver was insured under the premium computation table clause of workman.  They submitted all documents with insurance company, which covers personal accident of owner-driver CSI for an amount of Rs. Two lacs.

2.      Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint at the initial stage vide impugned order dated 05.08.2015.

3.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainants-appellants have preferred this appeal.

4.      Arguments heard. File perused. 

5.       Since complainants have already got compensation under section 4 and 4 A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, so they are not entitled for any benefit.  As per GR 36 owner-driver means  if owner is driving the vehicle. For ready reference, GR 36 A is reproduced as under:-

“ Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for owner-Driver.

Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both Liability Only and Package Policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving licence is termed as Owner-Driver for the purposes of this section.”

As owner was not driving the vehicle, so complainant’s are not entitled for the compensation and learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

October 28th, 2016	Mr.Diwan Singh, Member, Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.