State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Leela Bai vs National Insu.Co. on 14 February, 2020
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No. 1680 /2013.
SMT. LEELA BAI. .... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MANDSAUR (M.P.). .... RESPONDENT.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI VIJAY SHAHANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.
SHRI DEEPESH SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT.
ORDER
(Passed on 14/2/2020) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J :
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed against the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur (for short the "Forum") in CC No.80/2010 whereby the Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant / complainant on the ground that appellant's son Mukesh, who was driving the motor
- 2- cycle was not possessing permanent licence and was holding only a learner's licence.
2. Short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant's son Mukesh was registered owner of motor cycle bearing registration No.MP 43 MB 9487, which was insured with the respondent from 13.9.2007 to 12.9.2008 under Personal Accident with comprehensive insurance. According to the complainant when her son Mukesh was going on motor cycle from Mandsaur to Ratlam he met with an accident by dashing of the motor cycle with a Road Roller wrongly parked on the Main Road. As a result he suffered injuries and succumbed to death. The appellant stated that she submitted the claim with relevant documents but her case for compensation on account of death of her son was not considered and no claim was passed. She in the circumstances, had filed the complaint before the Forum.
3. Before the Forum the respondent contested the claim and submitted that on the date of the accident the appellant's son was not having valid and effective driving licence as he was driving the motor cycle in breach of fundamental conditions of the policy no claim for compensation as prayed can be granted.
4. The Forum after considering the evidence led by the parties placing reliance on the various judgements passed by the National Commission dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.
- 3-
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not in dispute that son of the appellant was holding only a learner's licence for riding the motor cycle. It is also not in dispute that there was no person sitting on the motor cycle satisfying the condition as per Rule 3 (b) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short the "Rules of 1989"). It is also not in dispute that there was no print of "L" in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on the plate or card affixed to the front and the rear. Thus, there was clear breach of Sub-Rule (b) and (c) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1989.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Our view finds support from the order dated 8.7.2019 passed by this Commission in the case of Tejsingh Pal versus Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. (FA No.1367/2008) as also order passed by this Commission on 8.1.2020 in the case of IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS SMT. SANGEETA DUBEY (FA NO.25/2012).
8. In the circumstances, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Prabhat Parashar)
PRESIDENT MEMBER