NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dhanlaxmi Market, Subhash Road, Veraval. —Petitioner
versus
Smt. Havaben —Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3061 of 2008
(From the order dated 03.05.2008 in Appeal No. 02/2008/CSD/09 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli at DIU)
Decided on 4.9.2013
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. of Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli at DIU (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in S.A. No. 02/2008/CSD/09 – Smt. Havaben v. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1’s husband Sabirbhai Mansuri was a driver of truck no. GJ – 17-X-5373 owned by OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2 and truck was insured by OP No. 1/ petitioner. Truck met with an accident on 24.12.2004 and Sabirbhai Mansuri died. It was further alleged that package policy in which personal accident insurance was also incorporated was taken and in case of accident owner/driver were entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of death. Complainant being wife of Sabirbhai Mansuri filed claim with OP No. 1 which was repudiated on 26.4.2006 on the ground that only the owner was entitled to get compensation. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted claim and submitted that claim was rightly repudiated, as only owner-driver was covered in the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with 6% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.10,000/- as cost against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, owner-driver was covered under the policy and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 supported Counsel for the Respondent No.1.
5. Learned State Commission has held that there was no dispute that Sabirbhai Mansuri was employed by Respondent No. 2 as a driver and there was no dispute that package policy was taken by Respondent No. 2 from petitioner and there was no dispute that driver died in accident.
6. Now, the main question to be decided in this case is as to whether; deceased Sabirbhai Mansuri was covered under the policy or not. Learned District Forum came to the conclusion that deceased was neither owner of the vehicle, nor policy was issued in his name; hence, he was not covered under the policy, whereas learned State Commission came to the conclusion that driver as well as owner both are independently covered under the package policy and further observed the words “owner-driver” are employed to cover both the situations and not the one that only the owner-driver is covered and that the driver who is not the owner is not covered.
7. Perusal of insurance policy clearly reveals that this policy was taken by OP No. 2 through partner Suleman Haji Ismail and personal accident cover for “owner driver” was provided to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Section 4 of the package policy reveals that in case of death of owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured, etc., he was entitled to 100% compensation. The proviso 4 of Section 4 runs as under:
“4. This cover is subject to:
(a) The owner-driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;
(b) The owner-driver is the insured named in this policy;
(c) The owner-driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the C
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.