BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 2129/2011
|
Senior Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Divisional Office,
“Seeta Smrithi”, 2nd Floor,
Maruti Galli,
Belgaum 590 002.
(By Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy)
|
……Appellant/s
|
V/s
|
1.
|
Smt. Sunidhi,
W/o Sitaram Kadav,
Age : Major,
|
..…Respondent/s
|
|
2.
|
Sumit,
S/o Sitaram Kadav,
Since minor represented by
his mother Smt. Sunidhi,
(1st Respondent herein)
Both r/o S.F. Quarters
No.66/8, Laxmi Tek,
Belgaum 590 009.
(By Sri Mahesh)
|
|
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.17.05.2011 passed in CC.No.554/2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belgaum.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that the husband of the 1st complainant and the father of the 2nd complainant by name Sri Sitaram is the owner of motor cycle No.KA-22/EA-7668 which was insured with Opposite Party Company for the period from 29.01.2008 to 28.01.2009. At the time of obtaining the policy, the husband of the complainant No.1 was paid premium of Rs.50/- towards personal accident coverage towards risk of personal accident. Such being the case, on 17.07.2008 at about 3.35 a.m. the husband of the 1st complainant riding his motor cycle near Military Mahadev Temple, Belgaum at the speed breakers he lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. Later the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 claimed for compensation by virtue of coverage of personal accident benefit. The Opposite Party after obtaining the claim form had repudiated the claim for the reason that he had no effective valid license as on the date of accident, hence, shown inability to pay the compensation under personal accident benefits. Against which the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident coverage along with interest and costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. The learned counsel for appellant submits that the husband of the complainant had only learned driving license as on the date of accident which does not amounts that he had driving license infact any person having driving learner’s license has to ride/drive the vehicle accompanied with instructor along with him whereas in this complaint the husband of the complainant has not accompanied with any instructor when he has only learning driving license. Hence, it is a clear case of violation of terms and conditions of the policy and prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. Further submits that the appellant had relied upon decisions by Apex Court in National Insurance Com
Back
