AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1996 is directed against the order dated 3.5.1999 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called as the District Forum for short) in Case No. 258/1999 dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.
FACTS not in dispute are : that M. Shabir Faruqui obtained Life Insurance Policy on 15.10.1992 for the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The policy was Money Back Policy with accidental benefit i.e. in case of death, due to accident, accidental amount equal to the sum assured subject to terms and conditions as specified in the policy, was payable by the respondent/insurer. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to road accident on 28.1.1996 near Kosa Nala, Sector-6, Bhilai. Undisputedly, the complainant has received the sum assured but was not paid the amount of accident benefit, on the ground that the deceased M. Shabi Faruqui was driving motor-cycle with two pillion riders, in contravention of law. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the terms of policy did not specifically prohibit pillion riding by two persons and, therefore, there was no breach of law committed by the complainant. It was further submitted that the terms of policy do not specify as to violation of which particular provision of law would entitle the respondent/insurer to repudiate the claim of accident benefit.
Learned Counsel for the respondent however, submitted that accident benefit on death of the life assured is governed by Clause 10(2)(b) of the policy document. Sub-clause (iv) thereof provides that the Life Insurance Corporation shall not be liable to pay additional sum of accident benefit, in case of death of the life assured if he commits any breach of law. It has been submitted that in the instant case, the deceased was driving the motor-cycle at the time of accident carrying two pillion riders, which was a clear breach of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, the respondent was justified in repudiating the claim of accidental benefit.
IN view of the above, the only question that arises for consideration is : as to whether the appellant can claim accident benefit ? As noticed earlier, the accident benefit could be avoided by the insurer if the death occurs on account of life assured committing any breach of law, as is provided in Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 10-2(b) of the terms of policy. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no driver of two wheeler motor-cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself, on the motor-cycle. In the instant case, admittedly the deceased was driving with two pillion riders i.e. two additional persons, besides himself. Therefore, there was clear violation of Section 128 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Breach of law as above disentitles the appellant from claiming accident benefit in view of Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (b) of 10(2) of the terms and conditions of the policy.
THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no particular provision of law in the terms of policy has been mentioned, the breach of which would entitle the Corporation to repudiate the accident benefit. THE contention as above is not acceptable. It appears from the aforementioned clause that any breach of law would entitle the LIC to repudiate the claim of accident benefit. THE said term is wide enough to cover breach of any provision of law including the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of above, it is clear that the appellant is not entitled to claim accident benefit. The impugned order of the District Forum, therefore, is justified and does not call for any interference. This appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall however bear their own costs, as incurred. Appeal dismissed.