AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—Petitioner is the widow of G.L. Jagadeesh who died in a road traffic accident on 29-8-2002. During the life time of her husband, he had assured his life and obtained a policy for Rs. 25,000/- vide bearing No. 610984825. The above policy was yearly money back policy with accident benefits. In the event o f death of the life assured in an accident, as per the terms and conditions of the policy double the sum assured has to be given to the nominee. Petitioner requested the respondent to honour her claim by producing relevant records. As per Annexure-D dated 27-1-2003 respondent called upon the petitioner to produce the driving licence of deceased GL. Jagadeesh in order to honour the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner sent a reply as per Annexure-E stating that she was informed by her husband about the driving licence obtained by him during his life time and that she is not aware of the office of RTO which had issued the licence in favour of her husband. She further stated that inspite of her best efforts, she is unable to search the driving licence. Therefore, she requested the LIC to honour her claim. On the ground that the request of the petitioner has not been considered, present petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondent to settle the claim benefit under the policy which is produced as Annexure-A and by quashing Annexure-D dated 27,1.2003.
Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that her husband had a licence to drive the vehicle. But she could not able to search the same in her house. It is also her case that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of her deceased husband, but it was due to the negligence of the other vehicle involved in the accident and that a criminal case has also been registered against the driver of the offending vehicles. Therefore, petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner cannot be refused by the LIC of India only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the valid driving license held by her husband. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for that petitioner that it may not be within the knowledge of the petitioner as she is only a house wife in regard to the details of the driving licence held by her husband. When the petitioner is not in a position to produce such documents, when the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased policy holder, respondent cannot repudiate the claim of the petitioner only on the ground of non-production of driving licence. Arguments of the Learned Counsel for the respondent that LIC cannot honour the claim of the petitioner in the absence of the production of driving licence could have been appreciated by this Court provided the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligence driving of the deceased Jagadeesh.
In the result, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the LIC of India to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above within appeared of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.