BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA No.800/2006 against CD.No.243/2004 District Consumer Forum, Guntur.



Between:

The National Insurance Company Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Branch – I, Post Box No.240, Arundelpet,

Guntur.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

1.Syed Babu, S/o.Meer Khasim Ali,

2.Syed Shaheda Banu, W/o.Syed Babu,

3.Syed Zabbar, S/o.Syed Babu,

4.Syed Nazima, D/o.Syed Babu,

All are r/o.Ali Nagar Area, 4th Line, Mugdum Nagar,

Guntur.

…Respondents/Complainants.



Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.R.Brizmohan Singh.

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.B.Parameswara Rao (for R.1 to R.4)





QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

*******



1. Aggrieved by the order in CD.No.243/2004 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Guntur, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants one to four are the legal heirs of Syed Jaffer, who is the cleaner of lorry No.AP7T5877, who died during the course of employment on 24.5.2001 while on duty when the driver of the lorry was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The said matter was reported to the police and an FIR was registered. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident and was drawing salary of Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.500/-towards batta. The complainants filed a case No.25/2000 under Workmen’s Compensation Act for compensation against the lorry owner and Insurance Company and as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur, compensation amount was paid. But the opposite party did not pay the personal accident claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident claim together with interest at 18% per annum and costs.

3. The opposite party filed counter admitting the settlement of claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act, but denies the claim of the complainants stating that Syed Jaffer was not a cleaner of the lorry and he was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the lorry, and hence, the claim is not maintainable.

4. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.9 and B.1 allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the claim of the complainants with interest at 9% per annum from the date of death of the deceased till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

6. The facts not in dispute are that there is a policy No.2000/6301427 R/1919/6301502 vide cover note No.117359 dt.6.11.2000 valid from 7.11.2000 to 6.11.2001. It is also not in dispute that lorry No.AP7T5877 was covered under the said policy. There was an accident at Hingoli highway within the police limits of Washim District of Maharashtra State. The FIR was registered and the police submitted their report stating that the said lorry being driven by a cleaner i.e. the deceased Syed Jaffer. It is also not in dispute that the complainants filed a case No.25/2000 under Workmen’s Compensation Act for compensation against the lorry owner and Insurance Company and as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur, the entire compensation amount was deposited in the court. It is the case of the complainants that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident claim was not paid by the opposite party.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that since the compensation amount was already paid under Workmen’s Compensation Act, the complainants are not entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident claim, and moreover the District Forum had directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- when the maximum liability of the appellant/opposite party is only Rs.50,000/-. The personal accident cover does not make the insurer liable to pay interest and that there is no privty of contract with the insurer. It is also the contention of the appellant/opposite party that the cleaner was one of the passengers, which is unsustainable in the light of the Ex.A.7 which is a final report in which it is stated that the cleaner of the truck, AP7T 5877 aged 23 years r/o.Ali Nagar, Guntur, died on spot due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Ex.B.1 is the policy copy. The learned counsel for the opposite party filed the terms and conditions before this Commission in which it is clearly stated that that the liability of the Insurance Company towards personal accident claim for the death of the cleaner is only Rs.50,000/-. We also observe from this policy copy that the premium was paid towards personal accident insurance. However, the terms and conditions show that the liability is restricted to Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, this appeal is allowed in part reducing the amount awarded by the District Forum from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum.

8. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part reducing the amount awarded by the District Forum from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.


PRESIDENT



LADY MEMBER



MALE MEMBER

Dt:17.4.2009.