Appeal No.98/09


The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Tonk Road,Jaipur.

Appellant

V.

1.Rambharat Singh,r/o Gandhinagar,Abu Road,Sirohi

2.Smt.Savitri r/o Gandhinagar,Abu Road,Sirohi

Respondents


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member



Shri Amar Nath Pareek,counsel for the appellant

Shri Sanjay Verma,counsel for the respondents




Date of Judgement: 3.8.09



BY THE STATE COMMISSION:


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company which was op before the District Forum,Sirohi against the order dated 11.12.08 passed by the District Forum,Sirohi in complaint no.10/08,by which the complaint of the complainant respondents was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay Rs.1 lac and further to pay Rs.5000/- as amount of compensation and Rs.2000/- as amount of cost of litigation,with interest @ 10% p.a wef 5.5.08 and if the above amount was not paid within two months,the rate of interest charged would be 12%

2


p.a


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondents had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Sirohi on 16.2.08 interalia stating that the son Narendra,now deceased of the complainant respondents had purchased a motor cycle on 11.4.07 from Sumerpur,District Pali for a sum of Rs.39,990/- and that motor cycle was got insured with the appellant insurance company for the period 11.4.07 to 10.4.08 for a sum of Rs.38,000/- and further the risk of the insured for accidental death was also covered being the driver of the motor cycle and as per the terms and conditions of the policy,if the insured dies in an accident,his dependents would be entitled to Rs.1 lac.

Note: These facts are not in dispute.

It was further stated in the complaint that on 15.6.07 the deceased was going on his motor cycle from Abu Road to Ambaji and he had died in an accident. Thereafter a claim was preferred with the office of the appellant insurance company,but that claim was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 16.10.07 in the following manner:


“AS PER POLICY CONDITION SEC.III (PA TO OWNER DRIVER) CONDITION. DRIVING LICENCE IS NOT PRODUCED HENCE THRE IS BREACH OF POLICY CONDITION CLAIM IS REPUDIATED.”

Thereafter the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Sirohi on 22.8.08 and in the reply the same pleas were taken which were taken in the repudiation letter dated

3


16.10.07 and it was specifically replied by the appellant that since the deceased was not having a licence to drive the motor cycle,therefore,on grounds of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy claim was rightly repudiated and complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 11.12.08 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that when the policy in question was taken by the deceased and when the risk of personal accident was got covered under the policy and such type of policy could only be issued after verification of the licence,therefore,it should be presumed that the policy in question was issued in favour of the deceased after taking into consideration that he was having a licence,therefore,repudiation of the claim on that ground was not justified at all, and since the complainant respondents are illiterate persons and specifically stated that the licence had been lost and,therefore,repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondents was not justified.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that since the licence of the deceased was not produced by the complainant respondents and since as per terms and conditions of the policy,it was a must,therefore,findings recorded by the District Forum could not be sustained and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.


On the other hand,the learned counsel for the complainant respondents has supported the impugned order.


4


We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.


In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the policy in question was taken by the deceased covering the risk of personal accident and there is also no dispute on the point that the deceased had died in an accident on 15.6.07.


In file, there is a FIR which was lodged with the police station,Sadar,District Sirohi bearing FIR no.133/07 on the parcha bayan of the person who was sitting on the same motor cycle alongwith the deceased and as per the contents of the FIR, the accident was caused by a maruti car coming from opposite direction.


In the facts and circumstances just narrated above,the question for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondents by the appellant insurance company on ground of licence could be justified or not and whether the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was allowed could be sustained or not;


In our considered opinion,the findings recorded by the District Forum are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record because of the following reasons:


That since in this case,the risk of personal accident was covered and that risk must have been covered after seeing the necessary papers including the licence of the deceased,therefore,after the death of the deceased,the appellant insurance company should not be allowed to agitate the question of licence.

5

Further in this case,the accident was caused not by the rash and negligent driving of the deceased as the deceased was driving his motor cycle and the accident was caused by the driver of the maruti car and the police had submittd the FR and since the accident had taken place without there being any fault on the part of the deceased,therefore,in such an event the question of licence had become redundant. From that point of view also,the question of licence is irrelevant in the present case and the repudiation of the claim of the complainant respondent on ground of licence was not justified and the findings of the District Forum by which the complaint was allowed are liable to be confirmed one.

On point of Interest.


The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in case the appeal is going to be dismissed,atleast some relief would be given on point of interest as the District Forum had awarded interest @ 10% p.a and if the amount was not paid within two months the rate of interest charged would be @12% p.a and thus it may be reduced to some extent.


In our considered opinion,if the rate of interest charged would be reduced to 9% p.a in place of 12% p.a,that would meet the ends of justice and to that extent,the impugned order dated 11.12.08 deserves to be modified.


For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is dismissed. However it is ordered that the appellant insurance company would pay the decretal amount with interest @ 9% p.a in place of 12% p.a and to that extent,the impugned order dated 11.12.08 passed by the District Forum,Sirohi is modified.



Member President