IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of August, 2016
Filed on 19.07.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.229/2013
between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Smt. Bindu The Divisional Manager
W/o deceased M.R. Prakashan United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Melappally House Divisional Office
Muhamma P.O. Sarada Shopping Complex
Muhamma Grama Panchayath Mullackal, Alappuzha – 688 001
Ward No. 9, Alappuzha (By Adv. C. Muraleedharan)
- Krishna Prakash
D/o deceased M.R. Prakashan
-do- -do-
(Minor represented by the mother and
Legal guardian 1st complainant Bindu)
(By Adv. James Chacko)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainants is as follows:-
Complainants are the only legal heirs of deceased M.R. Prakashan, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 7.1.2006 at 00.30 Hrs. At the material time of the accident, the deceased M.R. Prakashan was driving his own motor cycle bearing Regn.No. KL-04/M 5861 from north to south in direction at slow speed, sounding the horn with required light prudent and cautious manner made proper signal to right turn and already crossed the road and reached the western side road margin of the said road for entering to the Kalasserry Petrol Pump for filling the fuel, meanwhile a Hyundai Santro Car bearing Regn. No. KL-16/B 232 which came from south to north in direction driven by the Car driver at high speed, and in rash and negligent manner came to western side extremity and its front left side hit against the deceased’s motor cycle and the deceased fell on the road and sustained serious fatal injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The deceased M.R. Prakasan insured his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.KL-04/M 5861 with opposite party insurance company’s package policy which also covers owner-cum-driver in case of accidental death for Rs.1,00,000/- for which Rs.50/- premium duly paid by the deceased M.R. Prakashan. The insured M.R. Prakashan died on 7.1.2006 as a result of the said accident during the alive period of the policy. As per the terms and conditions of the above said policy the complainants are legal heirs of the deceased M.R. Prakasan and they are legally competent to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as assured compensation from the said insurer (opposite party). After the said traffic accidental death of Mr.K.R. Prakashan the complainants are legal heirs had duly filled claim form along with all police and vehicle particulars of KL-4/M 5861 lodged to the Divisional Manager, Divisional office of opposite party on 2.3.2006 and he firstly promised for payment within a short time, but so far no payment from the opposite party and again first complainant met with Divisional Manager and he denied the compensation to the complainants without any valid explanation. The denial of assured personal accident benefit by the opposite party caused a lot of mental agony and sufferings to the complainants. On 6.5.2013 complainants’ counsel sent a legal notice to opposite party for settling the assured sum by the opposite party, but till date no reply for the same, and the claim was not satisfied to the complainants, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The opposite party filed preliminary version stating that the complaint is not maintainable, as the matter already tried before the Forum and was dismissed on merit. After hearing the matter this Forum also dismissed the complaint as not maintainable. Against that order the complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and appeal was allowed matter is remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter the opposite party filed detailed version as follows:-
Opposite party issued a package policy to the vehicle No. KL-M/5861 for the period from 7.6.2005 to 6.6.2006. The complainants submitted a claim form on 27.6.2006 stating that the insured died in an accident on 7.1.2006 while driving the vehicle. While perusing the records it was found that the deceased insured has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, the license was not seen to have been renewed. Hence the amount was not paid. The complainants also not submitted the correct renewed license. As per the provisions of the policy the owner driver must have an effective and valid DL at the time of accident. All other allegations against the above fact is absolutely false and devoid of any merit. The company acted fairly, reasonably, justifiably within the frame work of policy, hence there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A11. Ext. A8 marked subject to objection. Opposite party was examined as RW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The points for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
6. The complainants are the wife and son of the deceased M.R. Prakashan who died in an motor accident on 7.1.2006. At the time of accident he was riding his motorcycle bearing Regn. No. KL-04/M 5861 which dashed against a car coming from the opposite direction. He has insured his motorcycle with the opposite party insurance company’s package policy under which the owner-cum-driver is covered for Rs.1 lakh for the accidental death. After the death of the Prakash the complainants claimed the policy amount, but the opposite party repudiated the claim. According to the opposite party, the deceased insured has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. They further stated that as per the provisions of the policy, the owner cum driver must have an effective and valid driving license at the time of accident. So the question to be considered is whether the deceased insured had valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The opposite party produced the judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.686/2011 which marked as Ext.B5 (Ext.A10 produced by the complainant). The appeal was filed by the wife of deceased Prakashan challenging the order of the District Forum in CC/No.159/2007 which was dismissed. In appeal, Hon’ble State Commission finds that, “If a license in terms of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been issued regarding the non-transport vehicle he would have held license to drive on renewal up to 15.8.2006 or considering his date of birth till 19.11.2010, the date of attainment of 50 years. In either case he would have held valid driving license to ride motorcycles. It was incumbent on the authorities issuing driving licenses to issue the same in terms of Section 14 of the
Motor Vehicles Act. It is to be presumed that the Insurance Company knows the law and is not expected to reject a claim on the technical ground that the driving license showed on the face of it that the period of license had expired.” By accepting the judgment in Appeal No.686/2011 we are of opinion that the opposite party is not expected to reject the claim of the complainants on the ground that the deceased insured has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The opposite party filed version, admitting that they issued a package policy to the vehicle No. KL-04/M 5861 for the period from7.6.2005 to 6.6.2006. The deceased Prakashan was the insured owner of the said vehicle as per the policy which marked as Ext.A6. It is an admitted fact that as per the policy, the insured amount is Rs.1 lakh. The repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to give Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the Complainants. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2, 000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainants. Since the primary relief is granted there is no amount as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2016.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Bindu (Witness)
Ext.A1 - True copy of legal notice with Regd. receipt
Ext.A2 - True copy of FIR and FIS
Ext.A3 - True copy of Legal Relationship Certificate
Ext.A4 - True copy of Postmortem Certificate
Ext.A5 - True copy of RC Book of Motorcycle
Ext.A6 - True copy of policy certificate of Motorcycle
Ext.A7 - True copy of driving license of deceased M.R. Prakashan
Ext.A8 - True copy of Circular No.5/98 from the Transport Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram (Subject to objection)
Ext.A9 - True copy of claim form
Ext.A10 - True copy of order from K.S.C.D.R. Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
on Appeal No.686/2011
Ext.A11 - Attested copy of birth certificate of Krishna Prakash the 2nd complainant
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Bindu. B. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of the package policy
Ext.B2 - Motor Claim form
Ext.B3 - Copy of the driving license
Ext.B4 - Copy of the Judgment in CC/159/2007 of CDRF., Alappuzha
Ext.B5 - Copy of the Judgment in Appeal No.686/2011 of CDRC., Tvm.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
