IMPORTANT POINT
Family members of insured are entitled to get some compensation for deficiency of Insurance Company.

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the impugned order dated 28.4.2011, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.51 of 2006. By the impugned order, the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhathinda, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint Case No.247/2005 has been partly modified, directing the O.Ps. to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-plus other benefits permissible under the insurance policy along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment and cost of Rs.10,000.

2. The brief facts of the case at hand are that Om Parkash Mantri (now deceased; hereinafter referred to as the insured), husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos. 2& 3, got his vehicle bearing Registration No. GJ-1HF- 8713 insured with the opposite party No.2/ the petitioner Insurance Company. The Policy (Policy No. 06030300/31/04/03445) was valid for a period from 02.06.2004 to 01.06.2005 for insured declared value (IDV) of Rs. 4,49,959/-. In addition, the insured had also got himself insured for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- against the accident and paid extra premium of Rs.100/-; he also got five unnamed passengers insured for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and paid a premium of Rs.250/- for the same. On 20.11.2004. The insured vehicle was driven by someone else when it met with an accident resulting in the death of the insured who was also a passenger in the vehicle. FIR No.227 was registered on the very same day with the Police of PS-Gudda Andla, District Pali. On 29.12.2004, the respondent no.1 herein lodged claim for the vehicle insured with the opposite party No.2. Although, the claim for the vehicle was settled, the opposite party No.2 rejected the claim for the insured vide letter dated 16.06.2005 on the ground that insured did not possess a valid and effective driving license to be considered as a owner-driver for the purpose of the insurance policy.

3. Aggrieved by the action of the O.Ps, the Complainant approached the District Forum and filed complaint No. CC/247/2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2005 holding that the insured was not entitled to any insurance claim either as an owner-driver or an unnamed passenger.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the complainants preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The Commission vide order dated 28.4.2011 partly accepted the appeal. It held that the insured was entitled to an insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus other benefits permissible under the insurance policy for unnamed passenger(s) as he was one of the passengers in the car when the accident took place. The said amount is to be paid along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment. Cost of Rs.10,000/- was also awarded.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the State Commission, the O.Ps. have approached this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Commission has erroneously proceeded on the ground that the insured is covered under the category of unnamed passengers. Learned counsel stated that the State Commission failed to appreciate the Indian Motor Tariff-16 endorsement which provides for personal accident cover to unnamed passengers and specifically excludes the insured, paid driver and cleaner.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the personal accident cover for the owner-driver is available to owner of the vehicle only when he possesses a valid and effective driving license as