State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Liberty Videocon General Insurance ... vs Smt. Savitri Satyavan Babar on 31 October, 2022
A/18/129
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/18/129
(Arisen out of order dated 27/11/2017 passed in Complaint No.320 of 2016 by the
District Commission, Central Mumbai)
Liberty General Insurance Limited,
10th floor, Tower A
Peninsula Business Park
Ganpatrao Kadam Marg
Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013. ...........Appellant
Versus
Smt.Savitri Satyavan Babar,
R/o.Village Kamti, Taluka Mohol,
District - Solapur. ...........Respondent
BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade President
Smt.S.T.Barne, Judicial Member
PRESENT: Mr.D.S.Joshi -Advocate for appellant
Advocate Ajay Pawar a/w Advocate A. Jadhav -Advocates for
respondent
ORDER
st
(31 October, 2022)
Per Hon'ble Justice S.P.Tavade, President
(1) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint no.CC/16/320 dated 27/11/2017, the original opponent-M/s. Liberty General Insurance Ltd. has preferred this appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be called and referred as per their status in the original complaint.
1A/18/129 (2) The Complainant is wife of Satyawan Bhagwat Babar who was an agriculturist holding land bearing Gut No.73/2 at Village Wagholi, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur. Satyawan Bhatwat Babar died in motor vehicle accident on 17/05/2015. The complainant contended that deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar had taken insurance policy under Government Scheme of Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana. On 11/05/2015 deceased was riding motor vehicle bearing No.MH-13-BF-5246 and was proceeding towards Village Kamti, Taluka Mohol. On the way one tractor came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to the motor cycle of deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar. In the said accident deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar suffered injuries. He was taken to hospital. He was treated till 17/05/2015 and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The son of deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar lodged F.I.R. against the driver of the tractor - Dilip Jagannath Ghodke, who was driving Tractor bearing No.MH-24-D-0574, with Trolly No.MH- 10-W-2295 and MH-10-W-2296. After death of the deceased information of the same was given to the Revenue Authority as well as the opponent Insurance Company. The complainant filed claim form with all required documents to the Village Revenue Officer (Talathi) and ultimately it was submitted to the opponent. The opponent perused the form and its annexures and repudiated the claim on the ground that the deceased was not holding valid license at the time of accident. Hence, the complainant filed complaint against the opponent with the District Commission and claimed amount of Insurance Policy of Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of litigation.
(3) Notice of the complaint was served upon the opponent. The opponent 2 A/18/129 appeared in the complaint and filed its written version through its Advocate. It was contended that the complaint was false, frivolous, malafide, mischievous and bad in law. It was contended that the complainant suppressed the material facts of the accident. It was contended that the opponent verified all documents and found that on the date of accident deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar was not holding valid and effective driving license. It was contended that the repudiation was legal and valid and there was no deficiency in service rendered by the opponent. It was contended that there was no malafide intention to repudiate the claim of the complainant as the opponent had considered all material facts and then rejected the claim. It was contended that there was no deficiency in service.
(4) It was contended that the opponent issued Janta Personal Accident Policy (Group) to deceased for the period 01/11/2014 to 31/10/2015 and whereby covered risk of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was contended that there was tri-partite agreement between The Commissioner (Agriculture), Commissionerate of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra, Pune Division The Insured, M/s.Universal Insurance Brokers Services Pvt. Ltd., The Broker and M/s.Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited., The Insurer, covering the risk of farmers who became members of the scheme. It was contended that accident took place on 11/05/2015 whereas driving license of the deceased had expired on 31/05/2014, much before the date of accident. It was contended that deceased was riding his motor cycle without valid and effective driving license which is a breach of Insurance Policy terms and Tripartite Agreement. It was also contended that at the time of taking the policy the deceased Satyawan Bhagwat Babar had not 3 A/18/129 furnished document to establish that he was farmer. It was contended that he had not submitted 7/12 extract or Village Annexure No.6D. Similarly, there was delay in submitting the claim form. Hence, the claim was repudiated. It is contended that the complainant was not entitled for any claim. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
(5) The complainant led evidence by way of affidavit. Similarly, the opponent has also led evidence and relied on the documents. On going through the evidence and the documents on record the District Commission has allowed the complaint which is under challenge.
(6) Heard advocate for the opponent and the complainant. Perused the judgment.
(7) Opponent has denied the claim on the ground that the deceased was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the ground was that the deceased was not a farmer at the inception of the Insurance Policy.
(8) As far as the validity of the license is concerned one must consider whether the deceased was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was a collision between the vehicle of deceased and the tractor. The investigation was carried out and Police prosecuted the driver of the tractor. The F.I.R. also shows that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident. Therefore, it can be said that the deceased was not responsible for the accident. In such circumstances, even though he had no valid license his claim cannot be repudiated on that ground. On this point the complainant has heavily relied on the ratio 4 A/18/129 laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Nitin Khandelwal, decided on 8th May, 2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the private vehicle was used as a taxi and the four passengers had hired the vehicle for going from Gwalior to Karoli and on the way said passengers snatched the vehicle from the driver. The said vehicle was used for personal use and it was used by the respondent as a taxi. In the said state of facts the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"9. The question then is; can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the negative. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(1)(ii) of the Motor Vehicle Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver."
In the present case also the deceased was not responsible for the 5 A/18/129 accident. Hence, the contention of opponent cannot be accepted. Therefore, though the deceased was not holding valid license his claim cannot be denied as he was not responsible for the accident.
(9) The other point raised by the opponent was that the deceased was not farmer at the time of inception of the policy. But, the complainant has produced on record copy of 7/12 extract dated 19 th January, 2016, which shows that the deceased was holding land admeasuring one acre at Village Wagholi. Similarly, he has produced on record 8A extract which also shows that he was a farmer. The complainant also produced on record the Mutation Entry dated 19th October, 2015 wherein names of heirs of the deceased were mutated on the land No.73/2. On the basis of the said documents it appears that the deceased was having annexure 8A as well as mutation entries, which were not annexed to the policy. The said documents are produced along with the complaint. So, it can be said that the deceased was farmer. Therefore, claim cannot be denied.
(10) The opponent has relied in the ratio laid down in the following cases:
(i) Liberty General Insurance Ltd. V/s. Pranali Popat Suryavanshi in Revision Petition No.RP/3363/2018, decided on 10/04/2019 by the Hon'ble National Commission. The deceased was driving vehicle without holding valid and effective driving licence and he was responsible for the accident. Therefore, his claim was denied.
(ii) Chaitrali Chandrashekhar Rajwade V/s.Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., decided on 06/04/2019 in Appeal No.A/17/533 by this Commission. Wherein also the deceased was responsible for the 6 A/18/129 accident and was not holding valid and effective driving license.
Hence, his claim was repudiated.
(iii) Liberty General Insurance Ltd. V/s. Renuka Santosh Waghmare, Appeal No.A/18/1030, decided on 06/12/2019 by this Commission, wherein the Insured himself was driving the vehicle without having valid and effective driving licence and complaint met with an accident resulting into his death. But, the claim was repudiated on the ground that he was not holding valid driving license and was responsible for the accident.
(iv) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited V/s. Smt.R.Suguna, in Revision Petition No.RP/3266/2005 decided on 16/09/2013 by the Hon'ble National Commission.
(v) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Zaharulnisha Civil Appeal No.3055 of 2008 Supreme Court decided on 29/04/2008
(vi) National Insurance co. Ltd. V/s. Laxmi Narain Dhut, reported in 2007(3) SCC 700 Supreme Court, decided on 02/03/2007.
(vii) Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 66 Supreme Court.
(viii) R. Muthukrishnan V/s. Managter, Canara Bank, NRI Branch, reported in 2014(3) CPR 672 decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
But the above mentioned authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case, because, the deceased was not responsible for the 7 A/18/129 accident. His death caused due to rash and negligence driving by the driver of the tractor. Therefore, the said rulings are not applicable to the present case. The Insurance Company has not considered the documents furnished by the complainant along with the claim form and rejected the claim. Therefore, it can be said that the Insurance Company was guilty of deficiency in service.
(11) The District Commission has rightly considered the facts and documents on record and has come to correct conclusion. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the District Commission. Hence, we hold that the appeal has no merit. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
[Justice S.P.Tavade] President [S.T.Barne]] Judicial Memberr emp 8