State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Future Generali Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Parvati Ananda Vharambale on 13 December, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/14/642
(Arising out of order dated 22/05/2014 passed by D.F.Kolhapur in CC/13/78)
Future Generali Insurance Co.Ltd.
Through Branch Manager
01, Delta Plaza, Ground floor
414, Veer Sawarkar Marg
Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025. .....Appellant
Versus
Smt.Parvati Ananda Vharambale
Warange, Taluka Karvir
Kolhapur .........Respondent
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
PRESENT:Mr.S.R.Singh-Advocate for appellant.
Mr.Umesh Mangave-Advocate along with Mr.Santosh Patil-
Advocate for respondent
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
1. By this appeal the appellant-Insurance company has questioned validity and legality of the impugned judgment and award dated 22/05/2014 passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhpaur in consumer complaint no.CC/13/78, whereby the Learned Forum was pleased to allow the consumer complaint and awarded sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the complaint. Apart there from compensation in the sum of Rs.3000/- towards physical and mental harassment and sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation costs have also been awarded.
2. Facts briefly stated are that one late Ananda Bandu Vharambale, a farmer, was covered under the 'Farmers Janata Accident Insurance Scheme' formulated by State Government for farmers. While said Ananda was 1 traveling by motor cycle bearing registration no.MH-08-L-0327 by Pune Banglore Highway on or about 30/11/2010, when the motor cycle was near Kasarwadi Phata, his motor cycle was hit by tempo bearing registration no.MWF-4620. In the result, said Ananda died on the spot. His body was subjected to post mortem in C.P.R. Hospital. The incident was reported at MIDC police station and offence was registered against the tempo driver under section 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The agricultural office Karvir was also informed and the claim was made on behalf of heirs of deceased farmer with District Superintendent Agriculture office in the Kolhapur District on 17/08/2011. It is case of the complainant that she is widow and unable to support herself and dependent upon agriculture for her livelihood. Therefore, she may be granted benefit of insurance claim for farmers. In support of the complaint the documents, such as, village form 7/12 of Gat no.328 land belonging to deceased farmer, copy of FIR, succession certificate, inquest panchanama, claim form were produced before the Learned Forum below.
3. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that deceased Ananda Bandu Vharambale was driving a motor cycle without having valid motor driving license. That being so, appellant had repudiated its responsibility to pay compensation to the complainant. It is submitted that in view of the tri- partite agreement between M/s.Cabal Insurance Broking Services Private Limited, the Government of Maharashtra through the Commissioner (Agriculture) and M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd., it was agreed specifically that valid motor driving license is needed along with other documents such as, copy of FIR, Inquest spot panchnama and Post Mortem report in support of the insurance claim and claim amount is payable to all farmers except the one who is driving without having valid motor driving license. It is therefore contended that late farmer Ananda Bandu Vharambale had no valid motor driving license. However, this contention is contested on the ground that late farmer Ananda Bandu Vharambale had a 2 driving license no.83/398 issued on 25/01/1983 for heavy goods vehicles. That was valid upto 13/10/2013 covering the date of accident.
4. According to learned advocate for the appellant in the ruling of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.v/s. Zaharulnisha & others reported in (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 385, effective driving license for a particular type of vehicle is required and not for vehicle of total different class from the one specified in the license. In the ruling definition of 'driver' defined under section 2(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act as also definition of 'driving license' defined u/sec.2(10) were considered and the necessity was mentioned in section (3) for the driving license prohibiting any person to drive the motor vehicle in any public place without holding an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall so drive the transport vehicle other than the motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so.
5. Thus it is submitted that strictly speaking late Ananda Bandu Vharambale had no valid driving license to drive the motor cycle though he may have possessed the motor driving license for heavy goods vehicle.
6. As against this submission on behalf of the respondent our attention is invited to ruling, which is already considered by the Learned Forum below reported in III(2000) CPJ 254 (NC) in the matter of United India Insurance Co.Ltd.v/s. Gaj Pal Singh, wherein the award was made on non standard basis in the case where driver had no valid and effective license at the time of incident. In that case in absence of nexus between license of driver and accident, insurer was held liable for claim allowed on non standard basis, because accident took place due to sudden fall of stones proved by surveyor's report. In the accident there was no fault of driving on the part of driver. Thus on the principle that the main or contributory cause of the accident if it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening cause having no nexus with driver 3 driving without requisite type of license, the liability on non standard basis was considered.
7. The grievance of the appellant is that Learned Forum could not have awarded sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation together with interest @ 9% p.a.
8. We have considered the rival submissions as also rulings cited before us. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when legal heirs of farmers are claiming compensation on the basis of 'Farmers Janata Accident Insurance Scheme', the object of the scheme is benevolent for the benefit of farmers in the State, who died on account of accidental death or such causes like succumbed by flood, shock, road accidents, etc. so that dependents of the farmer, who is head of the family, shall not suffer on account of sudden accidental death of the farmer. The scheme required the Assistant Director, Commissioner for Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune- 1, to act as disbursement officer to pay the insurance claim pursuant to tri- partite agreement and insurance companies also have obligation to inform details regarding the pending cases and monthly progress report to the Agricultural officer concerned. Considering the social welfare and benefit scheme as advanced by the State Government as also terms and conditions of the tri-partite agreement together by harmoniously construing the provisions as well as terms and conditions therein, we are of the opinion that although in the facts and circumstances of the case farmer Ananda Bandu Vharambale had no effective and valid motor driving license to drive the motor cycle, that was not the sole cause of the accident but his motor cycle was hit by another vehicle i.e. tempo which caused the accident resulting in the death of the farmer. Therefore, considering the documents, such as, FIR, Inquest panchanama, P.M. report, police investigation papers, etc. the claim deserves to be allowed, however, on non standard basis as referred to in the ruling in the impugned judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co.Ltd.v/s. Gaj Pal Singh. In our view, therefore the complainant is entitled to claim at least sum of Rs.75,000/- on non standard 4 basis from the Insurance Company together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. We hold accordingly and modify the impugned judgment as under:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Impugned order is modified as under:-
"Consumer complaint is partly allowed. Opponent to pay sum of Rs.75,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of complaint i.e.22/04/2013 till realization.
Opponent to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the litigation."
3. No order as to costs in this appeal.
4. The amount deposited by the appellant Insurance company be allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent/ original complainant. However, surplus if any, shall be refunded to the appellant/ insurance company.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 13th December, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [D.R.SHIRASAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER Ms 5