ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD vs KRISHNAVENI LAKSHMANAN

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras dated 29.3.93 in O.P. 48/92. THE opposite parties are the appellants.

THE husband of the first complainant and father of complainants 2 & 3 late Mr. Lakshmanan who owned a scooter had taken up a policy with the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He met with an accident while driving the vehicle and died on 29.5.91 during the period of policy. THE complainant claimed the policy amount of Rs. 20,000/- and this was resisted by the opposite party. Hence this claim. The opposite parties contended that Indian Motor Tariff No. 71 incorporated in the policy did not cover the insured and it covered only drivers other than the paid drivers. Insured who drove the vehicle was not covered by the policy.

This contention was rejected by the District Forum which directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with interest and costs.

EXH. A2 is the policy of insurance taken by late Lakshmanan with the opposite party for Rs. 20,000/- for the period from 27.12.90 to 26.12.91. He met with an accident on 2.5.91 while driving the vehicle and died as a result thereof. The complainants who are his legal heirs claimed the policy amount. The defence of the insurer is that the policy does not cover accidents while the vehicle is driven by the owner. This contention cannot be accepted. Clause IMT 71 does not deny the benefit of this insurance to owner driver. It runs thus : "It is hereby understood and agreed that the company undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided/or bodily injury/death as hereinafter defined sustained by driver (other than paid driver) of the vehicle on direct connection with the use of motor vehicle or whilst mounting or dismounting or driving the vehicle and caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independently or any other cause shall within 12 calendar months of the occurrence or such injury result in."

The learned Counsel for the appellants would however rely upon proviso 4 to the above Rule and contend that owner drivers are excluded from the benefit of the policy. Proviso 4 reads thus :- " Such compensation shall be payable only with the approval of the insured directly to the insured driver or to his/her legal representatives whose receipt shall be a full and final discharge in respect of the injury to such person."

According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, there is inconsistency between the main rule on the proviso and in such a case the proviso must be given effect to. We are unable to find any such inconsistency. The scooter insured with the opposite party might have been driven at the time of occurrence either by the owner or by a paid driver or by a friend. The above proviso will apply when the vehicle is driven by a friend in which case the compensation will have to be paid to heirs of friend-driver with approval of the insured. Inasmuch as the Main Rule does not exclude owner drivers, the complainants who are the heirs of the insured are entitled to the policy amount. The order of the District Forum allowing the claim does not call for any interference. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Appeal dismissed.