SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Smt. Nagamma —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4675 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 27/10/2009 in Appeal No. 3361/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 30.4.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ex-parte

IMPORTANT POINT
Person holding learner licence must be accompanied by an instructor holding effective driving licence to drive vehicle.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989—Rule 3(b)—Insurance—Repudiation of accidental death claim on ground that deceased was not having effective driving licence to drive motor cycle—District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest and further directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-—Deceased was driving motor cycle at the time of accident—Person holding learner licence must be accompanied by an instructor holding effective driving licence to drive vehicle and such instructor must be sitting in such a position to control or stop vehicle—There was no person as pillion rider on motor cycle at the time of accident and in such circumstances, there is clear violation of terms and conditions of policy and OP rightly repudiated claim—Impugned order set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 6 to 9)

       Result: Revision Petition allowed.

       

ORDER

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 3361 of 2009 – Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Nagamma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent’s son M. Mallu obtained insurance coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- from OP/petitioner. On 7.10.2006, M. Mallu while driving motor cycle dashed against a cyclist and fell down and sustained injuries and lost his conscious. FIR was registered under Section 279 & 337 IPC. He was shifted to Government hospital and from there he was shifted from time to time to different hospitals and on 8.1.2009 he died. Complainant submitted claim along with documents, but claim was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that claim was rightly rejected as deceased was not having effective driving licence to drive the motor cycle. It was further submitted that liability under the policy extends only if death takes place within 6 months of injury and as accident occurred on 7.10.2006 which resulted in death on 17.3.2009, claim was not payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for respondent event after service and he was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as deceased was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and as death not occurred within 6 months from accident, claim was rightly repudiated, but learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

6. Perusal of complaint reveals that insured M. Mallu was riding his bike on 7.10.2006 which dashed against another cycle rider. Same fact has been mentioned in affidavit of Smt. Nagamma, complainant. Cyclist Umesh, who was injured has also given statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 95/06 in which he mentioned that M. Mallu while riding motor cycle dashed against his cycle. Thus, it becomes clear that deceased himself was driving motor cycle at the time of accident. Learned District forum wrongly observed that deceased M. Mallu was pillion rider on the motor cycle, so, question of effective driving licence by deceased did not arise. Learned State Commission also endorsed this finding which is contrary to the record. By the evidence of complainant himself it stands proved that deceased was driving motor cycle at the time of accident. Perusal of record further reveals that deceased obtained learners licence on 15.9.2006 meaning thereby, he was not possessing driving licence on 7.10.2006 and was possessing only learners licence. As per Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, learner licencee alone cannot drive vehicle unless he is accompanied by a person having valid driving licence. Terms and conditions of policy require that owner driver must hold effective driving licence in accordance with provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. Rule 3 (b) provides that person holding learner licence must be accompanied by an instructor holding effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor must be sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. Admittedly, there was no person as pillion rider on the motor cycle at the ti







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top