State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Manager, The New India ... vs D.Amutha,Tirchy. on 11 June, 2015
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
Thiru.M. MURUGESAN, MEMBER.
F.A.No.83/2013
(Against the order in C.C.No.28/2012 dated 10.12.2012 on the file of DCDRF,
Tiruchirappalli)
THE 11th DAY OF JUNE 2015.
1. Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Obli Towers,
No.594, T.B. Road,
R.S. Puram,
Coimbatore.
2. Divisional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited.,
Jerome Building, Fort Station Road,
Trichy-2.
3. Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited.,
Juman Centre, 43-A/2, Promanande Road,
Contonment Road,
Trichy - 1. Appellants/Opposite Parties
Vs
D. Amutha,
W/o. P. Krishnan (late)
No.311/16, Mullai Street,
Bhell Nagar,
Thuvagudi,
Trichy. Respondent/Appellant
Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties: Mr.K. Chandrasekaran, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.T. Mohan, Advocate.
2
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 01.06.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records this
Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Tiruchirappallin passed in C.C.No.28/2012, dated 10.12.2012, allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that her husband died on 18.02.2010 in a road accident while he was riding a two wheeler and he had a insurance policy with the opposite parties and when he died the insurance policy was in force and the driving licence of her husband was lost in the accident. The opposite parties repudiated her claim on the ground that the driving licence of the deceased was not produced and the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
3. According to the opposite parties, the driving licence of the deceased was not produced which is required for settling the claim and therefore without production of the driving licence, the complainant is not entitled to the benefits of the policy. The claim of the complainant was rejected for proper and valid reason viz., non-production of the driving lincence of the deceased and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.
5. That the complainant's deceased husband died in the road accident while he was riding a two wheeler and that the policy was in subsistence at the time of accident are admitted facts. The only contention of the appellants/ opposite parties would be that the driving licence of the complainant's deceased husband was not produced and so the complainant's husband had been riding a two wheeler without proper driving licence which is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief under the policy.
6. The complainant has contended that her husband had valid licence for riding a two wheeler and the driving licence was lost in the accident and therefore the complainant is not in a position to produce the driving lincence of her deceased husband. In these circumstances, the onus of proving that the deceased had no valid driving licence at the time of accident is on the side of the opposite parties and the usual procedure is to verify with the Regional Transport Officer's office of the area concerned whether they had issued driving licence to the complainant's deceased husband and in case it was found that no driving licence was issued by the R.T.O.'s office; it should be established by summoning and examining the staff concerned in the R.T.O.s office. In the instant case, the 4 opposite parties have not taken efforts to verify with the R.T.O.s office and there is no such averment in the version. Therefore, it is not established that he had no valid driving licence to ride two wheeler during the relevant period and they have not examined any witness to adduce evidence that the complainant's deceased husband did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant's husband did not possess valid driving lincece at the time of accident, is untenable. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in rejecting the legitimate claim of the complainant and therefore the complainant is entitled to the reliefs under the policy.
7. The District Forum has rightly held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant and has allowed the complaint passing the order directing the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant with 8.5% interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
8. We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.
Sd/-xxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxx M. MURUGESAN, J. JAYARAM, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- June 2015