DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
D.F.Case No.50/2009
Complainant: Smt.Tithi Banerjee,
W/o.Late Aloke Banerjee,
C/o.Debeswar Banerjee,
Vill.-Sanko, P.S.-Galsi,
Dist.-Burdwan.
VERSUS
Opposite Party:1. M/S. Saluja Automobiles,
of Laxmipur, G.T.Road,
P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Manager in claim and other officials,
Macmet House, 10/B O.C. Ganguly Sarani,
Kolkata-700 020
Present : Hon’ble President: Biswarup Bandyopadhyay
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jharna Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sekhar Mukhopadhyay
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Not appeared.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2: Ld. Advocate, Subhajit Mondal
Date of delivery: 23/3/2011
JUDGEMENT
The case of the complainant, briefly stated, is that her husband purchased one Bajaj two wheeler motor cycle from M/s.Saluja Automobile (O.P. No.1) and the vehicle was put under insurance coverage with O.P. No.2 and the policy was for personal accident coverage extended to owner and driver in case of death for 100% or to a limit of Rs.100000/- during any one period of insurance and the policy was for the period from 15.5.2006 to 14.5.2007 and that the husband of the complainant had valid driving license and the period of its validity was upto 28.11.2006. It is the further case that on 18.6.2006 at about 8 PM the two wheeler No.WB41A-1455 met with an accident and the husband of the complainant sustained injury and he ultimately succumbed to injury on 21.6.2006. The fact of accident was informed to the O.P.s and to police. But the complainant has not yet received any compensation for the alleged accident in connection with the policy as the wife nominee of the victim, despite repeated reminders. Hence the present case with a prayer for the sum assured as per policy, compensation and for other relief since there was a glaring deficiency on the part of the O.P.s
The O.P. No.2 has contested the case by filing written version, denying interalia all the material allegation in the claim case. It is contended that the terms and conditions of the policy in question were not fulfilled by the complainant for which the claim was repudiated and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.
O.P. No.1 has, however, filed no written version. In connection with this case the complainant has filed some xerox copies of documents to support her claim. So also the O.P. No.2 has filed documents in support of his case. The complainant has also filed evidence on affidavit.
Now, in the context of the above facts and circumstances, it is to be determined by this Forum as to;
1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company?
2. Whether the complainant being the wife nominee of the deceased policy holder is entitled to get relief as per prayer?
DECISION WITH REASON
Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of brevity and also for a compact discussion. During argument it transpires from the submission of Lawyers that the policy in question and the insurance coverage therewith are admitted fact. The death of the husband of the complainant on 21.6.2006 is also admitted and the fact of death was duly informed to all concerned including police and the Insurance Company. The claim of the complainant was refused on 29.3.2007 on the ground of non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the policy. During argument Ld. Lawyer of the Insurance Company referred to Rule-3 of the Motor Vehicle Act and stated that the husband of the complainant had only a learner’s license at the time of accident and as per rule a learner’s license holder must be assisted by a licensed driver until proper license is obtained. In this connection on behalf of the complainant three decisions under annexure-A,B, and C of Ld. Apex Court and Calcutta High Court have been filed, wherefrom it is quite clear that a learner’s license is also a valid license calling for responsibility of the insurer if the holder of learner’s license possesses insurance coverage at the relevant time of accident. It is clearly stated in all cases that even when the offending vehicle was driven by a person holding a learner’s license, the Insurance Company’s liability existed. The Insurance Company can not repudiate the claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the Insurance Company solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a license when accident took place. In our present case, the deceased possed a learner’s license at the time of accident for which his nominee wife i.e. the complainant is entitled to get full benefit under the insurance coverage. Thus, the case of the complainant succeeds. Hence,
ORDERED
that the complainant is entitled to get the sum assured i.e. Rs.100000/- from the O.P. No.2 i.e. the Insurance Company together with interest accrued thereon from July, 2006 till the date of payment. The complainant is also entitled to cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2000/-. The O.P. Insurance Company is directed to abide by the aforesaid order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the law will take it’s own course. No order as against O.P. No.1 is passed since the complainant has prayed for no relief from O.P. No.1 and actually there was no cause of action against the O.P. No.1.
Dictated and corrected by me.
( Sri Biswarup Bandyopadhyay) ( Sri Biswarup Bandyopadhyay)
President President,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan. D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Mrs.Jharna Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.