MANJIT KAUR vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS is an appeal by complainant Manjit Kaur and her minor son Sehraj Jeet Singh against the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the "District Forum") dated 13.4.2006 by which their complaint has been dismissed.

BRIEF facts are that a motor cycle was purchased in the name of complainant Manjit Kaur, which was given to her in dowry. The vehicle was comprehensively insured in the name of Manjit Kaur with the respondent Insurance Company. In fact, it was a package policy which covered personal accident cover under Section III for owner-driver in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. Her husband Harjit Singh, who was driving the motor cycle in question, unfortunately met with an accident on 14.11.2004 during the subsistence of the policy. The husband died at the spot due to the said accident. An F.I.R. No. 180 dated 14.11.2004 was also lodged against the driver of the offending truck with which the motor cycle had met with an accident. An intimation of the accident was given to the respondent-Insurance Company by the widow and Rs. 1,00,000 was claimed because of accidental death of Harjit Singh, who was then driving the motor cycle. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that neither Harjit Singh was the owner of the motor cycle in question nor the insurance was done in his name. In fact the vehicle was owned by Manjit Kaur and the insurance policy was also in her name. This led the complainants to file a complaint before the District Forum. The said complaint has been dismissed by the District Forum on 13.4.2006 on the ground that neither the deceased Harjit Singh was the owner of the vehicle in question nor the personal accident insurance cover was in his name. Hence, the present appeal by Manjit Kaur and her minor son. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.

The argument that the insurance policy covered the risk of the owner-driver and since Harjit Singh, who had a valid driving licence, was the driver of the motor cycle in question at the relevant time, would be covered by the insurance policy regarding the personal accident insrance cover. Consequently, it was argued that the District Forum was not correct in dismissing the complaint.

BEFORE we deal with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant it will be apposite to take note of GR 36 of the Indian Motor Tariff: "GR. 36. Personal Accident (PA) Cover under Motor Policy. (not applicable to vehicles covered under Sections E, F and G of Tariff for Commercial Vehicles). A. Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver. Compulsory Personal Accident Cover shall be applicable under both liability Only and Package policies. The owner of insured vehicle holding an effective driving licence is termed as Owner-Driver for the Purposes of this section. Cover is provided to the Owner-Driver whilst driving the vehicle including mounting into/dismounting from or traveling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver. NB : This provision deals with Personal Accident Cover and only the registered owner in person is entitled to the compulsory cover where he/she holds an effective driving licence. Hence compulsory PA cover cannot be granted where a vehicle is owned by a company, a partnership firm or a similar body corporate or where the owner-driver does not hold an effective driving licence. In all such cases, where compulsory PA cover cannot be granted, the additional premium for the compulsory PA cover for the owner-driver should not be charged and the compulsory PA cover provision in the policy should also be deleted. Where the owner-driver owns more than one vehicle, compulsory PA cover can be granted only for one vehicle as opted by him/her."

It will be apparent from the reading of G.R. 36 of the Indian Motor Tariff that personal accident cover covers the risk of the owner-driver who dies in an accident and the cover is provided to the owner-driver while driving the vehicle including the mounting into or dismounting or travelling in the insured vehicle as a co-driver. Admittedly, in the present case, the vehicle in question was being driven not by the owner in whose name the insurance was done. According to us, the personal accident policy would cover only Manjit Kaur, complainant if she was driving the vehicle herself or was even travelling in the vehicle as a co-driver. It is not disputed that at the relevant time only Harjit Singh, husband of complainant Manjit Kaur, was driving the vehicle. According to us, personal accident insurance would not cover the risk of Harjit Singh. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum when it dismissed the complaint. This appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, this order will not come in the way of the complainants to file any claim regarding the damage to the vehicle in accordance with law and we have no doubt that if any such claim is filed before the approrpriate Forum/Insurance Company, the same will be decided in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed. -------------