State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Aig General Insurance Company ... vs Veena Kumari on 4 May, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 615 of 2024
Date of institution : 15.09.2024
Reserved on : 13.03.2026
Date of Decision : 04.05.2026
1. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Peninsula
Business Park, Tower A, 15th Floor, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai
- 400013 through its Managing Director
2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Unit No. FF 5,
st
1 Floor, The Mall Complex Sutheri Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab
146001, through its Branch Manager.
3. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Verma Motors
Pvt. Ltd., Near Vishal Mega Market, Garshankar Road, Nawanshahr
144514, Punjab through its Branch Manager.
...Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Veena Kumari aged about 57 years widow of Vijay Kumar, resident of
House No. 551, Blood Donors Colony, Street No. 2, Nawanshahr,
Punjab 144514
...Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Nawanshahr in C.C. No. 19 of 2024.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 2 Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Anmol Puri, Advocate VISHAV KANT GARG, MEMBER :
Appellants/Opposite Parties i.e. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others, have filed the present Appeal through its Managing Director to challenge the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nawanshahr (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant-Veena Kumari had been allowed.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as were arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Respondent/Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that the Complainant had purchased Suzuki Access 125 Scooter, bearing Chassis No. MB8DP12PHP8383211, Engine No. AF213340897 from Verma Autos Pvt. Ltd., Hoshiarpur. Said Scooter had been insured with the OPs under Policy No. 6100234 on paying the premium of Rs.6,706/-. Said Policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 08.09.2023 to 07.09.2024. Under the said policy, the insurance was provided for OD Claim, Third Party and Comprehensive Personal Accident (CPA) cover for owner-driver. On 04.11.2023, when the Complainant and her husband, were going to Dera Radhaswami Satsang on the Scooter, a speeding Truck driven rashly and negligently by its Driver had hit their Scooter. Said Scooter hit the divider and the Complainant and her First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 3 husband fell on the road and suffered grievous injuries in the said accident on their head and body. The Complainant's husband in unconscious condition was taken to Johal Hospital, Jalandhar where he had died during treatment on 04.11.2023. The Complainant was shifted to IVY Hospital, Nawanshahr for further treatment. FIR No. 157 dated 04.11.2023 was registered in this regard against the unknown person at Police Station, Sobhanpur. On 06.12.2023 through email, the Complainant had lodged the claim by attaching all the relevant documents i.e. FIR, Driving Licence of Vijay Kumar, the Death Certificate etc. OPs vide email dated 08.12.2023 had asked the Complainant to share garage name and contact number to co-ordinate and assist her further. The Complainant had replied to OPs email dated 05.01.2024 and informed through his counsel that the claim was regarding 'Compulsory Personal Accident Cover' provided in the Policy for the driver of the vehicle and not for vehicle repair. The OPs instead of settling the claim had given highly irresponsible replies to the mails of the Complainant and delayed the settlement of the claim.
4. Stating the act of the opposite parties to be a case of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice', it was prayed in the Complaint that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- being CPA cover provided for Owner & Driver as the husband of the Complainant Vijay Kumar had died in the accident alongwith 12% p.a. interest from 04.11.2023 till the date of actual payment. Rs. 2,00,000/- be demanded on account of suffering from mental tension, harassment and monetary loss at the hands of the OPs and Rs.40,000/- on account of deficiency in service.
5. Upon issuance of notice in the Complaint, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties had filed the written statement stating therein that the vehicle was insured in the name of Veena Kumari. Under the Insurance First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 4 Policy, CPA to owner-driver was provided and nominee in the same was Vijay Kumar. Vijay Kumar, the husband of the Complainant had died on 04.11.2023. Only the Owner cum Driver was entitled for sum insured of Rs.15,00,000/- under the policy. Veena Kumari was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. She was the owner of the vehicle in the Policy but she had supplied the copy of her Driving Licence, hence, was not entitled for any relief from this Commission. Under the terms and conditions of the Policy, OPs had undertaken to pay compensation as per scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the owner-driver of the vehicle in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst mounting into/dismounting from or travelling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means, which was independent of any other cause within six calendar months of such injury. It was pleaded that the Complainant had failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, was not entitled to claim any amount. The Complainant had no cause of action to knock the doors of the Commission. There was no 'deficiency in service' or 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs.
6. After considering the contents of the Complaint and the reply thereof filed by the Opposite Parties as well as on hearing the oral arguments raised on behalf of both the sides, the Complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 26.07.2024. The relevant portion of said order as mentioned in Para-8 is reproduced as under:
"8. In the light of our above discussion, complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed that:-
(i) To pay Rs.15,00,000/- being CPA (Compulsory Personnel Accident) cover for owner & driver First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 5
(ii) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment
(iii) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
9. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, OPs will be liable to pay interest @ 6% as mention in para (i) and (ii) (above) from the date of intimation of claim i.e. 06.12.2023 till its realization."
7. The aforesaid order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the Appellants/Opposite Parties by way of filing the present Appeal by raising a number of arguments.
8. There was delay of 19 days in filing the Appeal. M.A. No. 1264 of 2024 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, which was supported by an affidavit. The delay of 19 days in filing the Appeal, was condoned vide order dated 25.10.2024.
9. Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that admittedly the vehicle of the Complainant was insured with the OPs and Comprehensive Personal Accident coverage was provided only to the Owner-Driver of the vehicle. It was clearly mentioned in GR-36 of the India Motor Tariff that the owner of the Insured Vehicle, holding an effective driving licence termed as 'Owner- Driver', which relates to Personal Accident Cover. As the deceased, who was the husband of the Complainant was also not covered under the Comprehensive Personal Accident Cover, therefore, the Complainant was not entitled for insurance coverage under the Policy. Only the Registered Owner was entitled to the Compulsory Cover, holding effective driving licence. As the vehicle was not driven by the Complainant-Veena Kumari at the time of accident, therefore, her husband Vijay Kumar, who died in the accident was not beneficiary under the CPA cover. Similar issue had already been decided in number of cases and it was clearly held that First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 6 borrower cannot get the benefit of Personal Accident Claim. Therefore, it is clear that Personal Accident Insurance only covers the risk of the Complainant Veena Kumari. The District Commission while allowing the Complaint of the Complainant, had ignored the settled law as well as condition GR-36 of the India Motor Tariff, which clearly specifies that the owner of the Insured Vehicle, holding an effective driving licence is termed as 'Owner-Driver'. The impugned order passed by the District Commission was illegal and arbitrary, against the settled law, therefore, the same be set-aside.
10. On the other hand, Sh. Anmol Puri, Advocate learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the vehicle of the Complainant was insured with the OPs under Policy No.6100234293-00, wherein CPA cover to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- had been provided to the owner-driver. The vehicle had met with accident during insurance and in the said accident, the driver of the vehicle, namely, Vijay Kumar i.e. the husband of the Complainant had died. The Complainant had claimed the CPA claim of her expired husband, being the driver of the vehicle. The OPs had wrongly and illegally rejected the said claim of the Complainant. The District Commission had rightly dealt with the said issue and allowed the Complaint. The Appellants/OPs instead of complying with the said directions, had filed the Appeal, having no grounds/justification for setting aside the impugned order. The impugned order being justified, may be affirmed.
11. We have heard the oral arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission, written arguments submitted by the parties and all First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 7 the relevant documents available on the file. We have also gone through the judgments cited by both the parties.
12. There is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant's Scooter Suzuki Access was insured with the OPs and the Complainant had also purchased the CPA cover in the said policy. Said cover had provided Personal Accident Insurance of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Owner-Driver of the vehicle.
13. The dispute is that the OPs had stated that as the husband of the Complainant was not owner of the vehicle, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, therefore Compulsory Personal Accident (CPA) benefit could not be given to him, which was provided only to Owner- Driver.
14. The issue for consideration is as to whether the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was covered under the CPA cover or not?
15. The Complainant had purchased the 'Auto Secure Two Wheeler Package Policy' of TATA AIG Insurance. Section III of the said policy relates to 'Personal Accident Cover for Owner-driver', which is as under:-
"Subject otherwise to the terms exceptions conditions and limitations of this policy, the Company undertakes to pay compensation as per the following scale for bodily injury/death sustained by the Owner-Driver of the vehicle, in direct connection with the vehicle insured or whilst mounting into/dismounting from or travelling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver, caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independent of any other cause shall within six calendar months of such injury result in:"
16. Further the OPs on the basis of that stated :
"This cover is subject to
(a) the Owner-Driver is the registered owner of the vehicle insured herein;First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 8
(b) the Owner-Driver is the insured named in this policy;
(c) the Owner-Driver holds an effective driving license, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of accident."
17. It was argued that Vijay Kumar, the husband of the Complainant was not covered under the CPA cover in the Policy. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the Appellants has relied upon the judgments i.e. FAO No. 3764 of 2010 "Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Rajesh and others", decided on 14.05.2014 as well as "Manjit Kaur Vs. Oriental Insurance Company", 2006 (4) CPJ 70 and argued that Personal Accident Cover only covers the risk of the owner-driver, who dies in an accident, either he/she drives the vehicle or was co-driver at the time of accident. It was argued that Personal Accident Insurance would not cover the risk of other persons.
18. The law cited on the issue by the learned Counsel for the Appellant was not the latest law, whereas the question of coverage under Comprehensive Personal Accident was dealt with number of times and it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.", 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 435 that 'the borrower of the vehicle had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle'. In the said judgment it was held as under:-
"18. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 9 terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike."
Said law was followed number of times by the different Courts also. Punjab and Haryana High Court while deciding the identical issue in case "The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Birmati & Ors.", FAO No.762 of 2021, decided on 04.03.2022, held as under:
"14. Accordingly, it is held that the deceased, who was driving the borrowed vehicle had stepped into the shoes of the owner including his right to invoke insurer's contractual liability for personal accident and that the heirs of the deceased were/are entitled to recover compensation from the insurer for the death of the victim in terms of the insurance contract with the owner of the vehicle".
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in case "Sushila and others v. Pankaj Mahajan and another", 2014 ACJ 935 has also held as under:-
"...this Court held that reference to the term owner-driver must be understood as the owner, who is capable of driving and who is driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It cannot be understood as the owner/driver (owner or driver). It was further observed that it is evident from regulations that require owner-driver to be duly licensed to drive the vehicle. The optional cover could include unnamed passenger in a private vehicle First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 10 also. This Court, however, awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under 'no fault liability'.
19. This Commission has also followed the same law on the subject, while deciding F.A. No. 138 of 2024 "United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurdeep Kaur", on 04.08.2025 held as under:-
"...The son of the Complainant being the driver of the vehicle had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle i.e. Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to the claim under the Personal Accident cover of the policy for death of her son being the driver of the vehicle..."
20. Therefore, from the above said law, it is clear that the Driver of the vehicle was duly covered for Comprehensive Personal Accident, which was provided for Owner & Driver of the vehicle, as the driver of the vehicle had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, it was not necessary for the person, to hold the driving licence. Owner's vehicle can be driven by any person, holding valid driving licence, may be driver or any other known person.
21. Vide Circular dated 20.09.2018, IRDA the controlling authority of all the general insurers had recommended for enhancement of the amount of CPA under the policies. The husband of the Complainant was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, was competent to drive the vehicle.
22. Keeping in view the above discussion, the award passed by the District Commission is justified in the present circumstances. Hence, we do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the Counsel for the Appellants. Therefore, the Appeal of the Appellants is dismissed being meritless and the impugned order dated 26.07.2024, is upheld.
23. Since the main case has been disposed off, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed off. First Appeal No. 615 of 2024 11
24. The Appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.7,57,500/- at the time of filing of the Appeal and Rs.7,57,500/- in compliance with the order dated 25.10.2024. Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Concerned Party may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
25. The Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER (VISHAV KANT GARG) MEMBER May 04, 2026.
as