ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PREM LATA PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 20.2.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner (hereinafter referred as the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 29/2012, Smt. Prem Lata Purohit Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , vide which, while accepting the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 59/2008, filed by the present respondent, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant/respondent Smt. Prem Lata Purohit, the deceased Shiv Ratan Purohit was the owner of a registered three-wheeler vehicle No. RJ07 PA 716, for which he obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner/OP Insurance Company, valid from 30.12 2006 to 29.12.2007. He also obtained a personal accident cover along with the policy. It has been stated in the consumer complaint filed by the complainant, that on 4.4.2007, her husband was returning to his village from Bikaner in the said vehicle, being driven by its driver Bal Chandra. The said vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and on taking turn at Pugal Road, T Point, the vehicle overturned after it hit a military vehicle. The husband of the complainant suffered grave injuries on his head and was admitted in a hospital, where he died on 7.4.2007. A report about the accident was registered with the local police and a claim petition was also filed with the Insurance Company along with relevant documents in June, 2007. The information sought by the Insurance Company and documents demanded were also given to them, but the OP failed to settle the claim, meaning thereby, there was deficiency in service on the part of OP towards the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to pay them a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as personal accident claim, along with interest @ 18% per annum. In addition, the complainant demanded a compensation of Rs, 2 lakh on account of mental agony etc. and Rs. 5,100 as cost of litigation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complaint did not fall under the definition of 'consumer', as the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. It was further stated that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy only. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence with him at the time of the accident, although he was not driving the vehicle himself at that time. The OP Insurance Company also stated that Bal Chandra who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, did not have a licence for driving a transport vehicle. There was, therefore, violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and hence, the claim was not payable.