This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of    Sri. Swarna Govinda Rao, Advocate for complainant and of                         Sri. M.M.G. Ranga Rao, Advocate for the opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant had obtained an insurance policy with personal accident coverage from the opposite party vide policy No.051701 / 31 / 810 / 01 / 00003354 @ Rs.1,00,000/- on his Auto bearing no.AP-20-U-9906.  Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant / policy holder met with an accident and died on the spot on 23-03-2011 at about 19:00 hours, while he proceeding on his Auto bearing No.AP-20-U-9906 from Kodad of Nalgonda District to Nelakondapally, Khammam District.  The complainant further stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor and Trailer, bearing No.AP-24-E-2388 & 2389, who came from the opposite direction.  Thereupon, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, concerned and the case was registered U/sec.304A of IPC.  After completion of investigation, Police submitted Charge Sheet against the driver of the tractor.  The complainant submitted claim form, being the wife by claiming personal accident coverage @ Rs.1,00,000/- under said policy, but the opposite party rejected her claim through a letter dated 23-03-2011 by stating that there is no fitness to the insured vehicle at the time of accident and the driver has no valid driving license.  The complainant further submitted that it is the duty of the opposite party to pay the insurance amount, as there is no hope of settlement of her claim, filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and prayed to direct it to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount together with interest @24% per annum from the date of accident under said policy and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards damages and costs.

3.       Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed the following documents; those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.

Ex.A1:-Photocopy of FIR, dt. 24-03-2011.

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of Charge Sheet, dt. 10-05-2011.

Ex.A3:-Photocopy of PME Report, dt. 24-03-2011.

Ex.A4:-Photocopy of Panchanama Report.

Ex.A5:-Photocopy of Accident Report issued by MVI.

Ex.A6:-Repudiation letter, dt. 10-02-2012.

4.       On being noticed, the opposite party appeared and filed counter by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.

5.       In the counter, the opposite party submitted that, the insured vehicle was not having road worthiness and the driver was not possessed valid driving license at the time of accident.  The deceased drove the Auto with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor, proceeding from the opposite direction and there is no negligence on the part of driver of tractor.  The opposite party further averred that the alleged accident was occurred in between two vehicles, therefore, there is a contributory negligence on the part of driver of the insured vehicle and as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6.       The complainant filed a memo by stating that to treat the contents of complaint as written arguments on behalf of complainant.

7.       In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

8.       There is no dispute regarding the issuance of policy bearing No. 051701 / 31 / 810 / 01 / 00003354 with personal accident coverage on the Auto bearing No.AP-20-U-9906 of the deceased / husband of the complainant and also not in dispute with regard to the cause of death of the policy holder, the only dispute is with regard to the fitness of the insured vehicle and the validity of the driving license of the life assured at the time of accident.  According to the averments of complaint, the husband of the complainant died on the spot in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor bearing No.AP-24-E-2388, who dashed the insured vehicle, coming from the opposite direction.  To prove her averments, placed exhibits A1 to A6.  Exhibits A1 and A2 are the FIR and Charge Sheet, those are clearly speaks that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor driver and according to the aforementioned documents, it was revealed that the insured met with an accident and died on the spot.   And also established that the life assured was died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries including injuries on vital organs, evidenced under Exhibit-A3 but it is the case of the opposite party that the insured vehicle has no fitness certificate and the insured was also not having valid driving license at the time of accident and the accident was also not informed to the opposite party in time and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of it therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the policy amount under personal accident coverage of said policy.  Upon considering the aforesaid facts and the material on record, we feel that it is an established fact that the accident was caused only due to the negligence of driver of Crime Vehicle bearing No.AP-24-E-2388, and as such the plea taken by the opposite party with regard to the fitness of the vehicle and the validity of the driving license of the deceased is not sustainable, without placing any cogent or authentic evidence, only averments are not considerable and not sustainable.  Therefore, the insurer cannot repudiate the claim basing on mere technical grounds and it is an obligation on the part of the insurer to pay the assured amount, thus, cannot escape from its liability and as such the point is safely concluded in favour of the complainant by holding that the complainant is entitled to the policy amount under policy bearing No. 051701 / 31 / 810 / 01 / 00003354 under personal accident coverage.

9.       In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant under policy bearing No. 051701/31/810/01/00003354 under personal accident coverage together with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 10-02-2012.  And also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum, on this the 26^th day of September, 2014.

            FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.