Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Shyama Devi vs Bajaj Aliiiaz General Insuranc on 27 August, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4408/2009 (Smt. Shyama Devi Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.) Date of Order : 27.08.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, for respondent-Insurance Company. BY THE COURT
1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 22.08.2008, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jaipur dismissing the petitioner-claimant's case for award of Rs. 1 lakh under the personal accident coverage policy taken by the deceased, Lal Chand with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company (hereinafter 'the Insurance Company).
2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, Lal Chand was the registered owner of motorcycle No.RJ-14-48-M-4147 which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company through Policy No.99990001 in which the risk of the owner was additionally covered to the extent of Rs.1 lakh in respect of accidents in the course of use of the vehicle. Lal Chand, the husband of the petitioner the insured himself, met with an accident on 26.09.2005 while he was travelling on the insured motorcycle from Jaipur towards Kanota. As the risk relating to the death of Lal Chand was covered under the insurance policy availed by him for a sum of Rs.1 lakh, the petitioner, his wife, claimed to be entitled to receive the said amount from the respondent-Insurance Company. Requisite application along with documents was filed by the petitioner before the respondent-Insurance Company on 13.03.2007, but the respondent-Insurance Company rejected the petitioner's claim. Being aggrieved of the rejection of her claim by the respondent-Insurance Company, the petitioner filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for the same relief i.e. Rs.1 lakh coverage on account of personal accident clause.
3. In reply to the claim before the Permanent Lok Adalat as laid by the petitioner, it was submitted by the Insurance Company that in spite of repeated reminders, while the claim was being processed by the respondent-Insurance Company, the driving licence of the deceased Lal Chand or its number was not provided to the Insurance Company. It was submitted that the condition of the Insurance Policy mandated that Lal Chand to be entitled to personal Accident Coverage Police would be required to drive the motorcycle only duly licenced. Condition 3(1)(c) of the policy in issue provided that it would be a condition for the personal accident insurance coverage that the owner-driver holds an effective driving licence, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, at the time of the accident. It was submitted that without the said condition of the policy being satisfied, the Insurance Company was not liable to make any payment on account of personal accident coverage as per clause 3(1)(c) of the policy. Other grounds such as delay in laying the claim were also taken in defence by the respondent-Insurance Company. On consideration of the matter, the Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the claim laid by the petitioner holding that at the adherence to the policy under which compensation was sought had not been proved and the the petitioner had not been able to discharge her burden on that count and show that the insured (deceased) while driving the vehicles involved in the accident has a valid licence consistent with condition 3(1)(c) of the policy and thus was not entitled to an order in her favour.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition as also the impugned order dated 22.08.2008, passed by the Permanent Lok Adalad.
5. Compensation under a policy in this case issued by an Insurance Company is a matter of pure contract because the case is not a case of third party compensation but compensation qua death of the insured himself. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700] has distinguished the case of the third party as against the insured. The petitioner would have been entitled to compensation under the personal accident coverage policy of the deceased Lal Chand only in the event of it being established that the deceased Lal Chand while driving the motorcycle involved in the accident causing his death at the relevant time was duly licenced as mandated under the insurance contract. This burden was not discharged as neither a copy of the driving licence was filed in spite of the specific objection / defence in this regard by the respondent-Insurance Company, nor any details were furnished based whereon the driving licence of the deceased Lal Chand could be summoned from the Transport Department. And the Insurance Company had taken a specific defence in its reply that the insured did not have a valid driving licence when using the motorcycle involved in the accident leading to his death. The Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to allow a claim under the personal accident coverage of the deceased contrary to the specific terms and conditions of the insurance policy under which compensation was sought.
6. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A.