MOHANLAL TIWARI vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

BY this common order, Appeal Nos. 436/03 and 434/03 which are directed against the common order passed in Complaint Nos. 364/2000 and 361/2000 respectively by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for convenience) are being disposed of.

THE facts not in dispute are that the complainant/appellant is the father of deceased insured Om Prakash Tiwari. THE insured had obtained two Policies No. 381623037 and 381624226 for assured sum of Rs. 1.00 lac and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. Complaint No. 364/20000 was filed by the complainant/appellant regarding Policy No. 381623037, while Complaint No. 365/2000 was filed regarding Policy No. 381624226. It is also not in dispute that on 16.3.1999 while the deceased insured Om Prakash Tiwari was driving Hero Honda two-wheeler, he met with an accident near Bhanupratapur. It is further not in dispute that claim was preferred by the complainant nominee, father of the deceased insured. Undisputably, the complainant has been paid the assured sum under the said policies. The complaints have been filed for payment of accident benefit under the said policies. The claim as above has been disallowed by the impugned order, in view of the exclusion clause in the policy.

Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused.

THE only question that arises for consideration is: as to whether the complainant/appellant is entitled to accident benefit under the policies obtained by deceased insured Om Prakash Tiwari? In the above context Clause 10-2 of the policy spells out for entitlement of accident benefit. It states that the accident benefit would not be available inter alia on the death of the life assured resulting from the life assured committing any breach of law as would be clear from proviso No. (iv) of the said clause. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the deceased met with an accident while driving motor cycle. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/insurer requested the complainant/appellant to produce the driving licence of the deceased insured, but the complainant could not produce the same. During hearing in the appeal also, learned Counsel for complainant/appellant expressed his inability to produce the driving licence of the deceased. It was within the knowledge of the deceased and the complainant as to whether the driver insured held driving licence and the complainant was under an obligation to produce the same.

IT is clear, therefore, that the complainant has failed to prove that deceased was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. That being so, he could not claim accident benefit because, driving of motor cycle in a public place without valid and effective driving licence amounts to an offence and is thus breach of law. Thus the death appears to have occurred while the deceased was driving the motor cycle without holding a valid and effective driving licence. In the circumstances District Forum was justified in not awarding the accident benefit to the complainant/appellant. We do not find any substance in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. Impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeals dismissed.