State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Manager, L.I.C Of India, ... vs Kalaiarasi, W/O.Nagamuthu, No.18, ... on 27 March, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. BENCH - II Present: Thiru. J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., Presiding Judicial Member Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.634/2011 [Against order in C.C.No.38/2010 on the file of the DCDRF, Cuddalore] TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH 2012. 1. The Divisional Manager, L.I.C of India, Divisional Office, Arcot Road, Vellore 632 004. 2. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, No.52, Vasavi Angadi Complex, Kumbakonam Road, Panruti. .. Appellants/Opposite parties /Vs/ 1. Kalaiarasi, W/o.Nagamuthu, No.18, Narayanan Street, Malumiyar Pettai, Cuddalore O.T. 2. Nagamuthu, S/o. Venugopal, No.18, Narayanan Street, Malumiyar Pettai, Cuddalore O.T. .. Respondents/Complainants The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as accident benefit to the first complainant with 12% interest till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and to pay costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 30.11.2010 in C.C.No.38/2010. The appeal came before us for hearing finally on 9.3.2012. upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for Appellants/Opposite parties : M/s. Michael Marie Antony, Advocate. Counsel for Respondents/Complainants : M/s. S.Natarajan, Advocate. ORDER
TMT.VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER :
1. Opposite parties are the appellants.
2. Complainants filed a complaint against the opposite parties claiming direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as accident benefit to the first complainant with 12% interest till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and to pay costs.
3. The first complainant averred that her son Sathish took 4 policies with 1st opposite party nominating her. The total sum assured is Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant submitted that as per the terms of the 4 policies, in case of death of insurer due to accident, his nominee is entitled to get double the sum assured i.e. Rs.7,00,000/- as accident benefit coverage. The complainants submitted that their son the insured died in a road accident on 21.5.09 and the police registered a case in Crime No.242/2009. The first complainant filed a claim petition with the opposite party asking for Rs.7,00,000/- with interest.
4. The complainant stated that the 2nd opposite party without furnishing any details issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- and asked the complainants to invest balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant alleged that the 2nd opposite party and the agent threatened the complainants that if they have not invested in the policies, they could not get the balance of Rs.2,50,000/- from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The 2nd opposite party issued 5 policies in the name of 1st complainant her son adjusting total premium of Rs.25,500/-.
5. The complainants approached the 2nd opposite party claiming the balance of Rs.3,50,000/-. The 1st opposite party sent a letter dated 14.10.2009 rejecting the claim on the basis that the deceased rode the two wheeler with a learners license only.
The complainant caused legal notice on 12.12.2009 and the 1st opposite party again rejected the claim by reply notice. The complainant prayed claiming direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as accident benefit to the first complainant with 12% interest till realization, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties and to pay costs.
6. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainant in their written version and contended that the following policies were taken.
Policy No. Date of Commencement Sum Assured (Rs) Nominee Basic Claim Amount (Net) (Rs) 733690265 11.10.2004 1,00,000 Kalaiarasi 1,11,917 733690266 11.10.2004 1,00,000 Ramesh 1,14,392 734757818 25.03.2008 1,00,000 Kalaiarasi 1,00,000 734757819 25.03.2008 40,000 Kalaiarasi 43,360 The opposite parties contended that the assured met with an accident and died on 21.5.2000 without having proper licence. The opposite party claimed that an amount of Rs.2,55,277/- was paid to Kalaiarasi, nominee of the deceased for 3 policies and Rs.11,39/- to Ramesh her nominee the son. The opposite party contended that in view of the written request by the complainants, they invested in policies and the allegation of the complainant that they were threatened to take policy is false. The opposite party submitted that the cause of death was due to road accident while riding a two wheeler without proper license. The deceased was having only Learners license. The opposite party quoted the Motor Vehicle Rules (3 of 1989) prohibits a learner from driving any vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed to drive vehicles.
8. The opposite party confirmed that the deceased rode alone in a two wheeler as per police records also. The opposite party justified repudiation of accident benefit on the basis that not holding proper licence while driving is a breach of law as per the Motor Vehicle Rules. The District Forum allowed the complaint, and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- being the accidental benefit to the first complainant who is the nominee with 12% interest from the date of claim and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred an appeal. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the District Forums finding was on the basis of a citation.
Bhawan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Supreme Court
- 2009 (1) TN MAC 487 (SC).
The Supreme Court Judgment is for different purpose and the facts of the case were different. A person holding a learners license is also entitled to drive a vehicle but it is granted for a specific period. The Honble Supreme Court further observed It is true that despite expiry of a regular licence it may be renewed but no provision has been brought to our notice providing for automatic renewal of learners licence.
10. The District Forums finding is on the lines The Act provides for grant of learners licence, in disputably within the meaning a learners licence is also entitled to drive a vehicle. The District Forum failed to apply the other observations of Honble Supreme Court. The District Forums order was based on the FIR, which registered that the accident happened not due to mistake of the deceased but only due to rash and negligent during by one Tanker Lorry. The District Forum observed that this point was not disputed by the opposite party. The District Forum held the opposite party liable for deficiency in service for not proving their case.
11. The Respondent/complainant argued that as per Rule 3 of chapter II of Motor Vehicle Rules, on which the appellant/opposite party relied, shall not apply in the present case. The learned counsel for Appellant produced order in 2005 ACJ 1968 by High Court of Delhi.
Rama Nand Pandey and others Nist Tindi The High Court observed that a person holding a learners driving licence cannot drive a vehicle without having besides him a person duly licenced to drive vehicle.
12. After perusing material records rival contentions and going through the earlier judgments of Honble Supreme Court we come to the following conclusions. In the present case, the deceased had only a learners licence. Admittedly he was not accompanied by a person duly licensed during the accident. The provision of law and Motor vehicle rules mandate that the person holding a proper licence is entitled for accident benefit. The opposite parties have not denied the insurance amount but only the accident benefit amount. The terms are binding on the insured and the insurer. A person breaking road traffic rules is not entitled to make an accident benefit claim as a matter of right.
13. Here Life Insurance Corporation of India has not repudiated the entire claim but only the accident benefit to the nominee due to breach of road rules by the deceased. The District Forum has passed an erroneous order without proper application of mind.
14. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum, Cuddalore in C.C.No.38/2010 dated 30.11.2010 and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
15. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellants duly discharged.
VASUGI RAMANAN, J.JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/VR/LIC