New India Assurance Company Ltd vs T Yasodamma

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-This Revision has been filed against the Order dated 21st August, 2006 passed in Appeal No. 330/2004 by the State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission (for short, State Commission), Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the State Commission has set aside the order passed by the District Forum wherein it was held that the Respondent-Complainant was not entitled to any compensation.

GOVERNMENT of Andhra Pradesh sponsored a scheme of insurance for the benefit of drivers of transport vehicles in the private sector and issued a circular dated 19th February, 1996 specifying in Clause (iv) of the circular that all drivers in possession of a valid transport driving licence and who are working on any class of transport vehicle which are on the rolls of any Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh will be eligible for coverage under the scheme. In pursuance to the said scheme, Government insured few lakh drivers with New India Assurance Company, the Petitioner herein and the policy was on unnamed basis covering the duty period of the drivers with insurance coverage of Rs. 1,00,000 in case of death. After accepting the proposal of insurance regarding condition and coverage of the policy the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.M. No. 28 dated 25.3.1997 specifying the coverage of the insurance under Condition No. 3(iv) which reads as follows: "All drivers in possession of a valid Transport Driving Licence who are working on any class of transport vehicle which were on the Rolls of any Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh will be eligible for coverage under this scheme."

ACCORDINGLY, the policy was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh specifying the aforesaid condition among other conditions to claim the benefit of the policy.

MOHAN Reddy was one of the unnamed drivers covered under the policy for the period 21.3.1996 to 20.3.1997. Subsequently, the policy was renewed upto 1.4.1999 with the following modified term and condition: "The policy shall be on unnamed basis and it will cover for the duty period of the driver only and that the drivers in possession of a valid Transport Driving Licence who are working on any class of transport vehicle which is on the rolls of Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh will be eligible and was specified in G.O.M. No. 28 dated 25.3.97."

ON 29th March, 1998 Mohan Reddy died in a car accident while driving a lorry bearing Registration No. PY 01-1576 in Tamil Nadu.

RESPONDENT-Complainant wife of the deceased lodged the claim for the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000 which was repudiated by the Petitioner on 8th January, 1999 on the ground that the deceased at the time of death was driving a vehicle registered in Pondicherry which was not covered under the scheme.

AGGRIEVED by this intimation, the Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum. On being served, the Petitioner filed its objections disputing the claim by urging that at the time of death, the deceased was driving vehicle No. PY-01-1576 registered in Pondicherry (U.T.). That only drivers having valid Driving Licence driving the vehicle on Rolls of Regional Transport Office in the State of Andhra Pradesh were covered under the scheme. Since the deceased was driving a vehicle registered in Pondicherry, he was not covered under the scheme. The District Forum on perusal of the material on record dismissed the complaint by observing: "From the documentary evidence particularly the Government orders dated 19.2.1996 and 25.3.1997 it is clear that the insurance coverage under the scheme of Andhra Pradesh Government will be applicable to the drivers of transport vehicles having valid licence in case of death or permanent disablement while on duty and the vehicles must be registered with Andhra Pradesh registration. It is an admitted fact that Mohan Reddy died on 29.3.1998 while driving the lorry PY-01-1576 i.e. Pondicherry registration vehicle in Tamilnadu. From this it can be held that the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant in view of the conditions imposed. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party."

FEELING aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to pay to the complainant the insured amount under the insurance scheme introduced by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum by observing thus: "The District Forum misdirected the inquiry and came to erroneous conclusion that the insurance coverage will be applicable to the drivers of transport vehicle and they must be registered with A.P. registration. The aforementioned G.O. makes very clear that the complainant is eligible to the benefit of the aforementioned G.O. The mere fact that the vehicle is registered in Pondicherry does not deprive the complainant''s husband from getting the benefit of this welfare measure."

THE Complainant has remained ex parte before this Commission throughout. Notice for today''s hearing was sent to the Respondent through Registered Post, which has been received back duly served. Respondent is ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

THE coverage of the insurance under Condition No. 3(iv) was for all the drivers in possession of a valid Transport Driving Licence working on any class of transport vehicle which was on the rolls of Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh. The policy was on unnamed basis. Under the policy the drivers having a valid driving licence working on any class of transport vehicles which were registered with any of the Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh were to be covered. In the present case deceased died driving a vehicle registered in Pondicherry. Intention behind the policy was to cover the drivers plying the vehicles registered with Regional Transport Office in Andhra Pradesh. The same was not applicable to a driver driving the vehicle registered out-side the State of Andhra Pradesh. The terms of the contract were unambiguous and were incapable of different meaning. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the intention of the welfare policy envisaged by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The State Commission ought not to have imported a different meaning to the contract and come to the conclusion which was not contemplated between the parties to the contract. Terms of the contract could not be stretched so as to include the vehicles registered in any other State contrary to the terms of the contract.

FOR the reasons stated above, this Revision Petition is allowed. The Order of the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum restored and the complaint is dismissed.