THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
APPEAL NO.755/2012
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Company Ltd., ...Appellant/s
Royal Circle, Opp.: old bus stand
Bellary, Represented by its
Authorized Signatory Mr.M.Aravinda
(By Sri.J.R.Jagadish, Advocate)
-Versus-
Smt.Laxmi Alias Bhagyabai,
W/o M.Rama Naik,
Major, Resident of H.No.53, ...Respondent/s
Udaynagar, Bengeri Extension,
Hubli-23
(Sri.H.N.Kasal, Advocate)
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Opposite Party in complaint No.137/2011 preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bellary which directed this appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,08,000/-towards accidental death benefits with 6% interest per annum along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- and submits that the complainant is not entitled to get the accidental double benefits by virtue of the exclusion clause as per the policy terms and conditions. Since the deceased life assured while driving his motor bike had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident, basing on the said, the claim was repudiated. In fact they have paid assured amount of Rs.4,08,000/- to the complainant being the full and final settlement.
2. Since there is no driving license at the time of accident the double accident benefits was repudiated. The District Commission without considering the said facts had directed this appellant to pay the accidental double benefits amount to the tune of Rs.4,08,000/-, but they are not liable to pay the said amount. The policy terms and conditions are binding on both parties, if any terms and conditions were violated the beneficiary/complainant is not entitle to get any double accident benefits. As such the order passed by the District Commission lacks legality, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard from both parties.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, it is noticed that the complainant is the wife of late Rama Naik who had obtained life insurance policy bearing No.0085048400 and he had paid premium and as on the date of accident, the policy was in force.
5. The husband of the complainant died due to self accident on 16-11-2008 while he was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-25-H-9428, due to injuries the husband of the complainant succumbed and the same was intimated to the appellant, the police was filed FIR. Being the beneficiary of the policy, the complainant approached for assured amount with double accidental benefits. This appellant had paid assured amount of Rs.4,08,739/- in favour of the complainant and denied to pay accidental double benefits for the reasons that there is no valid driving license as on the date of accident.
6. We are of the opinion that, anticipating driving license from the complainant is not acceptable. If at all the appellant wants to verify whether the life assured deceased Rama Naik had valid driving license as on the date of accident or not has to be ascertained through RTO of the said locality, then repudiated the claim if he had no driving license, the said effort was not made by this appellant. Merely basing on the FIR, they arrived for conclusion that, the life assured had no driving license.
7. The complainant being a laywoman has no knowledge with respect to the driving license of her husband, since she is illiterate, when the required documents are not produced by the beneficiary/ complainant, the appellant company could have approached the required authority for ascertaining driving license. In this case no efforts were made and no endorsements with respect to whether the said Rama Naik had driving license or not issued by any authority. Hence the repudiation made for nonproduction of driving license from the complainant definitely not justifiable. Even during the course of trial also this appellant had not made any efforts to summon the nearest RTO for clarification with respect to the possession of driving license by the deceased life assured. In the absence of such, the appellant company is liable to pay the accidental double benefits to the complainant by virtue of the policy.
8. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and directed this appellant to pay the accidental double benefits. We do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. At the same no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. As such the appeal is dismissed and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 31.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bellary in CC.No.137/2011 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member Judicial Member
