APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioners | : | Mr. V. Prabhakar, Advocate | For the Respondents | : | Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate |
PRNOUNCED ON: 21st APRIL, 2016 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 27.03.2012, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 634/2011, The Divisional Manager, LIC of India & Anr. Vs. Kalaiarasi & Anr., vide which, while allowing the said appeal, the order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in Consumer Complaint No. 38/2010, was set aside and the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the son of the petitioners/complainants, Mr. Sathish took four policies from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and nominated his mother, who is petitioner no. 1/complainant no. 1 and his brother as his nominee in these policies. The total sum assured in all the four policies was Rs. 3,50,000/- and as per the terms and conditions, if the insured died due to accident, the nominee was entitled to get double the sum assured as accidental benefit coverage. The said Sathish died in a road accident on 21.05.2009 and a case was registered with the police vide crime no. 242/2009. The complainants filed claim with the LIC which made them payment of Rs. 1 lakh and allegedly forced them to invest the balance amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in some other five policies in the name of complainant no. 1 and her son Ramesh. However, when the claimants approached the opposite parties, claiming the balance amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs as double benefit claim, the same was rejected on the ground that the deceased was driving a two-wheeler with a learner’s licence alone, and that he could not drive a vehicle unless he had another person sitting with him, having proper licence to drive vehicles. The deceased had, therefore, committed breach of legal provisions as contained in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs as accident benefit with 12% interest and also Rs. 1 lakh as damages for deficiency in service and the cost of litigation. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties, LIC by filing a written statement before the District Forum, saying that the claim was not payable because of violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules as the deceased was driving a two-wheeler alone, having a learner’s licence with him at that time. 3. The District Forum, vide their order dated 30.11.2010, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the complainants alongwith 12% interest from the date of the claim and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony alongwith cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The District Forum observed that the accident had happened due to rash and negligent driving by one tanker lorry and not due to the mistake of the deceased. Being aggrieved from this order, the LIC challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which has been decided vide impugned order, vide which, the order of the District Forum has been set aside and the consumer complaint dismissed. Being aggrieved from this order, the complainants are before me by way of the present revision petition. 4. At the time of hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the accident in the present case did not occur due to the mistake of the deceased, but it was due to rash and negligent driving by the tanker lorry. The cause of accident, therefore, was not a result of any breach of legal provisions by the deceased and hence, the accident benefit was liable to be paid to the complainants. Even if the deceased had been accompanied by another person having a valid licence, the accident could not have been avoided. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the deceased committed violation of rule ‘3’ of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which prohibits him from driving any motor vehicle, unless he has besides him, a person duly licensed to drive a vehicle and in every case, the vehicle carries ‘L’ plate, both in front and the rear of the vehicle. Admittedly, in the present case, the conditions as stated above were not fulfilled and hence, it is clear that the deceased had no authority to drive the vehicle. 6. A perusal of the terms and conditions attached to the insurance policy in question indicates that it has been laid down in condition no. 10.2 related to accident benefit as follows:- “10.2. Accident Benefit: if at any time when this policy is in force for the full sum assured the Life Assured, before the expiry of the period for which the premium is payable or before the policy anniversary on which the age nearer birthday of the Life Assured is 70, whichever is earlier, is involved in an accident resulting in either permanent disability as hereinafter defined or death and the same is proved to the satisfaction of the Corporation, the Corporation, agrees in the case of:- …………………… b. Death of the Life Assured: to pay an additional sum equal to the Sum Assured under his policy, if the Life Assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and the independently of all other caused result in the death of the Life Assured. However, such additional sums payable in respect of this policy together with any such additional sums payable under other policies on the Life Assured shall not exceed Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Corporation shall not be liable to pay the additional sum referred in (a) or (b) above, if the disability or the death of the Life Assured shall: ………………… (iv) result from the Life Assured committing any breach of law: or …………………” 7. It is evident from the above condition that if the life assured commits any breach of law, the accident benefit is not payable. The contention of the petitioners/complainants, therefore, that cause of accident is not related to the breach of any provision; does not entitle them to get the accident benefit. 8. The District Forum, while allowing the complaint in question relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2009 (1) TN MAC 487 (SC). It has been stated in the said judgment that if a learner’s licence had expired before the date of the accident, there was a breach of terms and conditions of contract of insurance; hence the claim was not payable. The District Forum, decided that since in the present case, the learner’s licence possessed by the deceased was valid, the claim was payable. The view taken by the District Forum is not tenable in the eyes of law, because even if the learner’s licence was valid, it does not entitle a person holding such licence to commit any breach of conditions, under which the licence is valid. The District Forum have, therefore, wrongly relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra). 9. On the other hand, it has been made clear by the High Court of Delhi in Rama Nand Pandey & Ors. vs. Nisha Tiwari & Ors., 2005 ACJ 1968, that if no person holding a valid licence was sitting by the side of the driver, the said driver was committing breach of conditions of learner’s licence as defined in rule ‘3’ of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 10. In the present case, the opposite parties, LIC have already paid the sum assured under the policy to the complainants. I, therefore, agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that the accident benefit claim was not payable to the complainants for the aforesaid reasons stated. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error of any kind. There is, therefore, no force in the present revision petition and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the order of the State Commission is upheld, with no order as to costs. |
