RAJUL PARAKH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 1st May, 2002 in Complaint No.187/2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (herein-after called the 'distt. Forum' for short), directing the respondent/insurer to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant/appellant.

(2.) Relevant undisputed facts stated briefly are, that the vehicle Maruti van No. MP-24g 6230 was comprehensively insured with the respondent/insurer for the period from 3.3.2000 to 2.3.2001. Extra premium of Rs.50/- per passenger was charged for 8 passengers totalling Rs.400/- under the policy and thus risk of the unnamed passengers in the car to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per passenger was covered under the said policy. It is also not in dispute that on 20.10.2000, the deceased Praveen Parakh was driving the said vehicle and travelling therein along with his family members, including his wife, the complainant/appellant. The said vehicle met with an accident on Bhilai-Durg road as it collided with the bus coming from the opposite direction. As a result of the accident the deceased Praveen Parakh sustained injuries and expired. The complainant being wife of deceased laid claim with the respondent/insurer for payment of insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the stand taken by the respondent/insurer was that as the deceased was driving the vehicle, only sum of Rs.20,000/- was payable to the complainant/appellant under the terms of policy

(3.) The Distt. Forum in the impugned order after considering the terms of policy held that since the deceased Praveen Parakh was driving the vehicle, the complainant was only entitled to Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the respondent/insurer was directed to pay the above amount to the complainant/appellant. It has been urged on behalf of the complainant/appellant in this appeal that since extra premium was charged by the insured, covering the risk of unnamed passengers travelling in the vehicle, and as the husband of the deceased was also a passenger travelling in the said car, the insured was liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the terms of the policy. As against the above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent/insurer was that since the deceased was driving the vehicle, he would be covered by I. M. T.-71 of the policy.