Date of filing: 12.01.2021

Date of Disposal: 30.06.2023

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.36/2021

PRESENT:

SRI. SHIVARAMA, K:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

W/o Late Maheshwarappa,

R/o K.G Koppalu Village,

Kadurhalli Post, Kadur Taluk,

Chikmagalur District. ……COMPLAINANT

(Advocate – Sri.Pavan)

M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office,

Cresent Court, 1^st Floor,

Thogari Hankal Circle, K.M Road,

By its authorized signatory.

Branch office at

No.467, Sridevikrupa,

Vijaya Bank Layout,

Bengaluru – 560 076.

(Advocate – Sri.Janardhan Reddy)

******

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to  pay compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is not in dispute that the complainant’s husband was the owner of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-18-Q-7230 and he has obtained insurance policy for the said vehicle from the opponent and the same was in force from 21.09.2019 to 20.09.2020.  Further it is not in dispute that on 21.12.2019 complainant’s husband while riding the said motor cycle it met with an accident and he succumbed to the accidental injuries on the spot and the police belong to Kadur circle had registered the case against the deceased and had filed abated charge sheet against him U/s.279, 304(A) of IPC.  Further it is not in dispute that the policy was a package policy and the risk of the owner cum driver being insured entitled for PA coverage for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- if he had valid driving license.  Further it is not in dispute that OP had repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant on the ground that the insured did not renew the driving licence.  Further it is not in dispute that the insured had the driving licence for a period from 18.04.2007 to 15.09.2018.  Further it is not in dispute that at the time of accident the policy was in force. 

3. It is the further case of the complainant that the opponent had committed a serious act of deficiency in the services and has acted in most callous and negligent manner in redressing the grievance of the complainant.

4. It is the further case of the opponent that, it has informed the complainant to furnish the renewed driving licence of the insured/deceased to settle the claim.  The complainant did not produce the renewed license.  Further the opponent is even ready and willing to settle the claim subject to furnishing of valid driving licence.  Hence, it has rightly repudiated the claim.

5. To prove the case, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and got marked documents Ex.P-1 to P-8 documents.  The Deputy Manager of OP (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R-1 to R-6 documents. 

6. PW-1 and RW-1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings in the affidavits filed in the form their evidence in chief.  Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

          7. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief 

as sought ?

     iii) What order?

8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:  In Negative

Point No.2:  In Negative

Point No.3:  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:- It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the complainant is entitled for compensation as per owner driver in CSI of Rs.15,00,000/-.  It is the contention of the opponent that since valid driving licence has not been produced, the complainant is not entitled for the compensation sought.  Further deceased Maheshwarappa (insured) had the driving licence for the period only from 18.04.2007 to 15.09.2018.

          10. Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates that if the application is made for the renewal of the driving licence more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9. 

11. As per the terms of the policy produced by the opponent vide Ex.R-1 any person including insured, provided that a person holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license may drive the vehicle.  In the case on hand admittedly the insured was not holding effective driving licence.  Further since the insured was died, the driving license has not been renewed.  Hence, we feel opponent is right in repudiating the claim of the complainant.  Accordingly, we answer this point in negative.

12 Point No. 2:- In view of the findings given on point No.1, this point is answered in negative.

13. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:

1. Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.   

2. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

3.  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

(Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed by him and typed by him and corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on 30^th day of June, 2023)

• RAJU.K.S)                                            (SHIVARAMA, K)
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined from the side of complainant:

Smt. Padma, the complainant (PW-1).

Documents marked from the side complainant:

1. Copy of insurance policy is marked as Ex.P-1.

2. Notarized coy of the RC book is marked as Ex.P-2.

3. Xerox copy of the death certificate is marked as Ex.P-3.

4. Xerox copy of the Aadhar card is marked as Ex.P-4.

5. Xerox copy of the genealogical tree is marked as Ex.P-5.

6. Xerox copy of the letter dated 29.01.2020 and 17.06.2020 with RPAD receipts is marked as Ex.P-6.

7. Copy of the opposite party reply notice dated 11.06.2020 and 17.08.2020 is marked as Ex.P-7.

8. Notarized copy of charge sheet and its enclosures is marked as Ex.P-8.

Witness examined from the side of opposite party:   

Sri.H.A Pannaga, Deputy Manager of OP (RW-1)

Documents marked from the side of Opposite Party:

1. Copy of insurance policy.
2. Copy of certificate in respect of compliance of sec.64VB of Insurance Act, 1938.
3. Copy of the police complaint & FIR.
4. Copy of death of the certificate of Maheshwarappa.
5. Copy of DL extract.
6. Copy of repudiation letter dated 17.08.2020.

• RAJU.K.S)                                            (SHIVARAMA, K)
•  

 vln*