State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insu.Co.Ltd. vs Baijnath Prasad Tiwari on 4 March, 2024
Daily Order M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2022 (Arising out of order dated 23.03.2022 passed in C.C.No.92/2019 by District Commission, Rewa) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE-MAHARAJA HOTEL SHOPPING COMPLEX, NH-7 ROAD, REWA (M.P.) ... APPELLANT. Versus BAIJNATH PRASAD TIWARI, S/O LATE NATHUNI PRASAD TIWARI, R/O VILLGAE-POST-SURA, POLICE STATION AND TEHSIL-MANGAWAN, DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT. BEFORE : HON'BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : ACTING PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : Ms. Preetima Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. O R D E R
(Passed On 04.03.2024) The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:
The opposite party-insurance company has filed this appeal against the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.92/2019 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed.
2. In brief facts of the case are that complainant's motorcycle was insured with the opposite party-insurance company w. e. f. 18.02.2016 to -2- 17.02.2017. The said policy covered the risk of the owner/driver to extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. During the insurance cover, on 07.03.2017, the subject motorcycle met with an accident of which intimation was given to the insurance company. At the time of accident, the complainant's son Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari was riding the motorcycle. On the date of accident itself during treatment, the complainant's son driver Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari died. The complainant filed a claim with the opposite party-insurance company but the insurance company did not pay the claim. It is submitted that the insurance company charged extra premium for risk coverage of the driver. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, amount of Rs.25,000/- spent in repairs and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that there is risk coverage of owner cum driver and not of any other driver. The extra premium charged from the complainant was for the risk coverage of the owner of the motorcycle to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant did not produce the estimate and requisite documents along with the claim form and therefore the amount of damages was not -3- assessed. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment within a period of one month. Compensation of Rs.3,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. It is further directed that the complainant may file the claim along with requisite documents with the insurance company within a period of one month and thereafter the insurance company shall decide the claim within a period of further one month from the date of receipt of claim. It was also made clear that if the complainant remained unsatisfied with the decision taken by the insurance company regarding settlement of claim, he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in accordance with law.
5. Heard. Perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company argued that there is risk coverage of owner cum driver. The extra premium charged from the complainant was for the risk coverage of the owner cum driver in case of any accident. In case that any other person, other than the owner is driving/riding the vehicle, there is no risk coverage. She argued that the District Commission has committed error in holding that since the complainant's son was riding the motorcycle and therefore -4- he was authorized to ride the vehicle whereas in the policy risk coverage was of only owner cum driver. There was no risk coverage of third party. She argued that the District Commission has committed grave error in allowing the complaint. She therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on careful perusal of record, we find that admittedly, the subject motorcycle which was insured with the opposite party-insurance company met with an accident on 07.03.2017 and got damaged. The complainant's son who was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident, died on the same day during treatment. Here in the present case, the complainant's son deceased was authorized to ride the motorcycle by the owner of the motorcycle and therefore he stepped in the shoes of the owner and is entitled to get the claim amount which was covered as risk in case of accidental death under the policy.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ningamma Vs United India Insurance Company Limited (2009) 13 SCC 710 relying on its earlier judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rajni Devi & Ors, has held that in our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, -5- the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in questioned. 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 authorized to drive the said vehicle by its owner and therefore he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike. Further Hon'ble Apex Court has held that we have already extracted Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.
9. It is further observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the policy of insurance could also cover cases against any liability which may be incurred by the insurer in respect of death or fatal injury to any person including the owner of the vehicle or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or arising out of the use of vehicle in the public place. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court relying in its earlier decision in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors, has held that in that case the son of the owner was driving the vehicle, who died in the accident, was not regarded as third party.
10. In view of the aforesaid and considering the settled principle of law by the Apex Court, we are of a considered opinion that in the present -6- case, the complainant's son was riding the motorcycle with the permission of the complainant-insured and he was authorized by the owner of the motorcycle and therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation of risk coverage on account of his death.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission after considering evidence on record and considering all aspects of the matter passed a well-reasoned order and we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld.
12. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey) Acting President Member