National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Nagamma on 30 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4675 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 27/10/2009 in Appeal No. 3361/2009 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD. Through Assistant Manager (Legal) Shri Sanjay Gupta,
2nd Floor,
1, DLF Industrial Area,
Moti Nagar New Delhi - 110015 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SMT. NAGAMMA Resident of Dadapura Village,
Dugganahalli Post,
Kirugavalu Hobli Malavalli Taluk Mandya - 571430 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate For the Respondent : Ex-parte
Dated : 30 Apr 2015 ORDER
PRONOUNCED ON 30th APRIL, 2015
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE 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 time of accident and in such circumstances, there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy and OP rightly repudiated claim.
7. It is also not disputed that accident took place on 7.10.2006 and insured died on 8.1.2009, i.e., after almost 2 years & 3 months. As per terms and conditions of policy, death must occur within six calendar month of injury. As death has not occurred within period of six months from date of sustaining injury by the deceased, OP rightly repudiated claim.
8. I do not find any deficiency on the part of OP in repudiating claim and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 3361 of 2009 - Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nagamma and order dated 28.7.2009 passed by the learned District forum in CC No. 38 of 2009 - Smt. Nagamma Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER