State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Shiv Krishan & Ors. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance on 25 November, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 450/2007. Date of Decision 25.11.2008. 1.
Sh. Shiv Krishan Lal son,
2. Sh. Balram Kalia son,
3. Sh. Sushil Kumar son,
4. Smt. Bimla Devi wife,
5. Sh. Deepak Sharma, son,
6. Ms. Meena Devi, daughter,
7. Ms. Minakshi Sharma, daughter,
8. Ms. Ritu Kalia, Daughter All sons, wife and daughters of late Shri Ramesh Chand Kalia S/o Sh. Mukand Lal R/o Vill. Chhaproh (Chintpurni), Tehsil Amb Distt. Una, HP appellants No.2 to 8 through their General Attorney Sh. Shiv Krishan Lal Appellant No.1.
..Appellants.
Versus Bajaj Alloanz General Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Rampa Tower, IIIrd Floor, Opposite Circuit House Civil Line Jallandhar 141 001 through its Manager.
.Respondent.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Whether Approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellants. Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mr. Chanden Goel, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Admitted facts giving rise to this appeal are that late Shri Ramesh Chand Kalia was the owner-driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-23A- 0055. It was insured under a valid policy of insurance for the period 8.3.2002 to 7.3.2003 with the respondent. As per Annexure C-4 it was insured on IEV (Insureds Estimated Value) at Rs. 3,47,500/- and respondent had charged insurance premium on that basis.
2. Before proceeding further it is necessary to notice what is mentioned in the bottom of Annexure C-4 which could not be disputed at the time of hearing nor it has been contested in the reply filed by the respondent to the complaint. For ready reference these contents are as under:-
If the insured dies within 12 months of sustaining Accidental Bodily Injury during the Endorsement Period (Same as motor policy period) then the Company shall pay the Sum Assured ( Rs. 2,50,000/-) and if the aforesaid Accidental Bodily Injury causing death was sustained while the Insured was travelling in an aircraft anywhere in the world then the company shall also pay an Additional sum Assured ( Rs. 7,50,000), coverage being worldwide. This PA policy is non-transferable (not applicable to corporates/partnerships) (Emphasis supplied)
3. This insured vehicle met with accident on 26.10.2002 and proved fatal to the owner-driver Sh. Ramesh Chand Kalia. Claim was lodged with the respondent by the appellants. It has been repudiated on the ground that the deceased driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident because it had already expired on 2.6.2002. And the same having not been renewed by or before 1.7.2002, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable for payment of any claim either in respect of own damage of the vehicle or under the sum insured in respect of death of the owner-driver who was admittedly travelling in the vehicle at the time of its accident.
In this context when a reference is made to paragraph 3 of the complaint and its reply filed by the respondent, it is evident that the contents of paragraph 3 are admitted to be correct and only plea set out is that vehicle was insured at IEV of Rs. 3,47,000/- whereas its market value was Rs. 3 lacs. Regarding personal accident claim there is no murmur in the reply. As such the stand of the appellants regarding that part of the complaint is presumed to be admitted. Once this conclusion is arrived at then the decision of this case need not detain us any further. For ready reference para 3 of the complaint and its reply both arte extracted below:-
3. That the deceased Ramesh Chand Kalia had insured the aforesaid Maruti Zen car with the opposite party under personal and accident claim vide policy No.G-02-10000-1801-928111. Zen car for Rs. 3,47,000/- Personal Insurance of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
3. That para No.3 of the complaint is also correct. However it is worth mentioning here that Rs. 3,47,000/- was the insured estimated value of the car at the time of insurance whereas the market value of the said car was Rs. 3,00,000/- at the time of accident.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to take help from the provisions of Section 15 (4) 1st and 2nd proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in support of her plea to allow own damage claim despite expiry of the driving licence of the deceased and its having not been renewed as per Section 15 (1) proviso of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This question is covered by a decision of this Commission in Appeal No. 200/2008, decided on 31.10.2008, in case titled Vinay Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Therefore this plea is hereby rejected.
5. For allowing own damage of the vehicle, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the policy is flexible and the risk was covered under the contract of insurance. Suffice it to say in this behalf that no contract can be entered into which is contrary to law as it would be against public policy, as such prohibited under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore in respect of own damage the claim made by the appellants is turned down.
6. General denial is contained in the reply of appellants to para 10 of the complaint regarding insured being not in possession for valid driving licence at the time of accident. Consequently the claim of the insured car and personal accident were not payable in any manner. Similar is the position while denying the claim of the appellants in the written arguments. These are at page 68 of the complaint file.
7. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing this appeal impugned order passed by the District Forum below in Complaint No. 6/2004 on 31.3.2007 is modified and the respondent is directed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of personal insurance cover alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.2.2003 till the date of deposit/payment whichever is earlier. The entire amount is to be shared equally by all the appellants. Date of 1.2.2003 has been fixed after allowing sufficient time to the respondent to settle the claim of the appellants after accident. No costs.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
25th November, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
d.kZ*