Appeal No.713/06

Smt.Surta V. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mr.G.S.Hora-Member


Shri Asgar Khan,counsel for the appellant

Shri Rishi Pal Agarwal,counsel for the respondent


Date of judgement : 15.05.2009


BY THE STATE COMMISSION.


This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 23.3.06 passed by the District Forum,Ajmer in complaint no.304/05,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant in respect of the claim and benefit on account of accidental death was refused.


2. It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent insurance company before the District Forum,Ajmer on 28.10.05 interalia stating that her husband Puranmal,now deceased had got his TVS Victor bearing no.RJ.01.MF.9384 for a sum of Rs.37,700/- with the respondent insurance company for the period 31.1.05 to 30.1.06 and apart from that the deceased had taken the personal accident policy from the respondent insurance company and as per the terms of the policy, if the insured dies in an accident the respondent insurance company would


2


further pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. It was further stated in the complaint that on 26.3.05, when the deceased was going on his Victor from village Derathu to Khiriya, a jeep bearing registration no.RJ.RJ.01.C.1966 had caused accident with the motor cycle as a result of which the deceased had died on the spot and a report was lodged with the police station Nasirabad bearing FIR no.64/05 for offences u/s 279 & 304 (A) IPC and since the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep ,therefore,police had submitted a challan against the driver of the jeep. It was further stated in the complaint that after the death of the deceased all relevant papers were submitted by the complainant appellant with the respondent insurance company,but the benefit of accidental death was not given by the respondent insurance company and for that the complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the respondent insurance company on 20.3.06 and the case of the respondent insurance company was that the claim for accidental benefit was denied by the respondent insurance company on the ground that the licence which was produced pertaining to the deceased was of LMV and light transport vehicle though the vehicle in question was TVS,therefore,that licence was not valid and for that the benefit of accidental claim was not payable and the accidental benefit could be Rs.1 lac and not Rs.2 lacs as alleged by the complainant appellant and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 9.6.08 had passed an order only in respect of the damage of the vehicle but the claim in respect of accidental benefit was denied.


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


3


3. In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that the case of the respondent insurance company that the claim was not payable is absolutely wrong one as the vehicle in question which was being driven by the deceased was very small TVS vehicle,though he was having a licence to drive LMV and further the accident was caused not by the rash and negligent driving by the deceased, but by the driver of the jeep against whom challan has been filed,therefore,the complainant appellant is entitled to the benefit of accidental death which comes to Rs.1 lac.


4. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has supported the impugned order.


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


6. In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the deceased had got the motor cycle insured with the respondent insurance company for the period 31.1.05 to 30.1.06 and had taken a personal accident policy covering the risk in the manner that in case the insured dies in an accident,the respondent would pay a sum of Rs.1 lac. There is also no dispute on the point that the deceased had died in an accident caused by the jeep and a challan was filed by the police against the driver of the jeep.


7. There is also no dispute on the point that the claim of the complainant appellant was repudiated by the respondent insurance company on the ground of licence. There is also no dispute on the point that the deceased was having a licence to drive LMV though his vehicle was TVS,a ligher vehicle than LMV.


8. In our considered opinion,since in this case,the proximate cause

4

of accident was the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep agaist whom challan had been filed for offences u/s 279 & 304 (A),IPC,therefore,the issue of licence has no bearing and further the deceased was having a licence to drive LMV.


9. Thus,for reasons as stated above,the repudiation of the claim on ground of licence was not justified at all and similarly,the findings of the District Forum by which the benefit of accidental death was refused, could not be sustained and the complainant appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lac on account of accidental death of her husband alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint and further entitled to Rs.3000/- as amount of cost of litigation.

10. The result is that this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is allowed,impugned order dated 23.3.06 passed by the District Forum,Ajmer is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant appellant is allowed in the manner that the respondent insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.1 lac with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint alongwith Rs.3000/- as amount of cost of litigation to the complainant appellant.



Member President