Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. V. Babu Naidu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1112950
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnFeb-21-2003
Case NumberF.A. No. 678 of 1998
JudgeP. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE DR. (MRS.) MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. C.P. SURESH, MEMBER
AppellantLife Insurance Corporation of India
RespondentV. Babu Naidu
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - comparative citations: 2004 (1) cpc 203, 2004 (1) cpj 42c.p. suresh, member: 1. the unsuccessful opposite party in cdc no. 190/1996 on the file of the district forum, chittoor, is the appellant before this commission. 2. the facts in brief are that the complainant who was working as a driver in the a.p.s.r.t.c. chittoor depot obtained a policy for rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite party under the salary saving scheme commencing from 19.2.1990. on 17.10.1994 at about 3.30 a.m. while the complainant was driving the apsrtc bus on kurnool-hyderabad route, near shadnagar met with an accident, as a result of which his right leg was amputated in the nizams institute of medical sciences, hyderabad. as per the terms of the policy, the opposite party is liable to pay the benefits to the complainant, who suffered permanent disability. the complainant demanded the opposite party to settle the claim, but the claim was repudiated and hence he approached the district forum. 3. the opposite party filed its written version admitting that the complainant was working as driver and has obtained a policy. it is further alleged that the intimation of the accident was not given within 90 days of the occurrence, but was given only after more than a year and that the complainant was removed from the service after a thorough inquiry by department after he was found guilty of rash and negligent driving. as he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled for any benefits. 4. basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the district forum held that there was deficiency of service and allowed the complaint. 5. aggrieved by the said finding and order, the opposite party preferred this appeal. the point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? 6. the facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant who was working as driver in the apsrtc, while driving the bus on 17.10.1994 at about 3.30 a.m. dashed against the stationed lorry, proceeded further and dashed against the road divider which resulted in the death of three persons. an fir under sections 304a and 338, ipc was registered against him on the basis of the statement recorded from the conductor by the police. in this case the complainant alleges that due to failure of brakes he dashed against the stationary lorry and he was not driving the bus either in a rash or in negligent manner. 7. the conductor was exmained on behalf of the complainant. he stated that the complainant shouted that breaks have failed at the time of the accident. his evidence is contrary to what he has stated in ex. b-3. in ex. b-3, the conductor has categoricaly stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashe against the stationed lorry and also further dashed against the road divider. but in the evidence he states that the driver shouted that the brakes have failed. this is an after-thought and no credence can be given to the evidence of the conductor. ex. b-2 is the proceedings of the depot manager, chittoor-2. this is an order of dismissal of the complainant from the service, based on the report of the inquiry officer, which reads as follows : “as per the rough sketch of the accident, chief inspector, shadnagar report, inquiry report and other documentary evidences available on record the driver sri v.b. naidu e. 502892, has driven the vehicle with rash and negligent and high speed. therefore, he lost the control on the streeing and hitted (sic) the stationed lorry no. add 3335 on the right side back portion which was parked on the left side of the road and without stopping and again hit the right side road divider due to which 3 persons were died (sic) 5 persons got grievous injuries besides our crew. i, therefore, fully concur with the findings of the inquiry officer holding the charge no. 1 proved.” the said order was confirmed in appeal by the complainant to the dy. chief traffic manager. the order of the dy. manager was confirmed and the appellate authority also found that : “i have gone through the subject case, p. case and appeal. it is observed that the appellant has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without taking proper precautionary measures and driven the vehicle carelessly. if he has taken precautionary measures and driven the vehicle carefully the said accident would not have been occurred but he failed to do so. it is also observed that the appellant has driven the vehicle without observing road rules near shadnagar at about 3.50 hrs. and hit a stationed lorry on its back right side which was parked on the left side of the road which resulted the lorry was pushed to a distance of 20'. due to this impact of the accident the bus later turned to right and hit a road divider which is 1 foot height on the right side of the road and then the bus was stopped due to spare wheel carrier which resulted 3 passengers were died and grievous injuries to four passengers and also the crew of the bus. added to it the appellants left leg was amputated later due to the accident. it is observed that the accident report was submitted by the chief inspector, shadnagar that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and without anticipation and failed to take precautionary measures. it is also observed that the appellant is responsible for charges and he deserves severe punishment. the appellants version is not true and correct and his explanation is not acceptable and not convincing.” these reports clearly show that the complainant has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and has violated condition no. 10(b)(iv) which reads as follows : “result from the life assured committing any breach of law” : on this ground the opposite party was justified in repudiating the policy. the other ground taken by the appellant is that the intimation of the accident ought to have been given within the stipulated period of 90 days. clause 10(a) reads that— “the disability above referred to must be disability which is the result of an accident and must be total and permanent and such that there is neither then nor at any time thereafter any work, occupation or profession that the life assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn or obtain any wages, compensation or profit. accidental injuries which independently of all other causes and within 90 days from the happening of such accident.” the complainant has not intimated about the accident to the opposite party within 90 days, but has done so only after an year. based on this ground also, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. for the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed without costs. appeal allowed.
Judgment:

C.P. Suresh, Member:

1. The unsuccessful opposite party in CDC No. 190/1996 on the file of the District Forum, Chittoor, is the appellant before this Commission.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant who was working as a driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. Chittoor Depot obtained a policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the opposite party under the Salary Saving Scheme commencing from 19.2.1990.

On 17.10.1994 at about 3.30 a.m. while the complainant was driving the APSRTC bus on Kurnool-Hyderabad route, near Shadnagar met with an accident, as a result of which his right leg was amputated in the Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad.

As per the terms of the policy, the opposite party is liable to pay the benefits to the complainant, who suffered permanent disability. The complainant demanded the opposite party to settle the claim, but the claim was repudiated and hence he approached the District Forum.

3. The opposite party filed its written version admitting that the complainant was working as driver and has obtained a policy. It is further alleged that the intimation of the accident was not given within 90 days of the occurrence, but was given only after more than a year and that the complainant was removed from the service after a thorough inquiry by department after he was found guilty of rash and negligent driving. As he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled for any benefits.

4. Basing on these pleadings and the evidence adduced, the District Forum held that there was deficiency of service and allowed the complaint.

5. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?

6. The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant who was working as driver in the APSRTC, while driving the bus on 17.10.1994 at about 3.30 a.m. dashed against the stationed lorry, proceeded further and dashed against the road divider which resulted in the death of three persons. An FIR under Sections 304A and 338, IPC was registered against him on the basis of the statement recorded from the conductor by the police. In this case the complainant alleges that due to failure of brakes he dashed against the stationary lorry and he was not driving the bus either in a rash or in negligent manner.

7. The conductor was exmained on behalf of the complainant. He stated that the complainant shouted that breaks have failed at the time of the accident. His evidence is contrary to what he has stated in Ex. B-3. In Ex. B-3, the conductor has categoricaly stated that the driver of the bus drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and dashe against the stationed lorry and also further dashed against the road divider. But in the evidence he states that the driver shouted that the brakes have failed. This is an after-thought and no credence can be given to the evidence of the conductor. Ex. B-2 is the proceedings of the Depot Manager, Chittoor-2. This is an order of dismissal of the complainant from the service, based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, which reads as follows :

“As per the rough sketch of the accident, Chief Inspector, Shadnagar report, inquiry report and other documentary evidences available on record the driver Sri V.B. Naidu E. 502892, has driven the vehicle with rash and negligent and high speed. Therefore, he lost the control on the streeing and hitted (sic) the stationed lorry No. ADD 3335 on the right side back portion which was parked on the left side of the road and without stopping and again hit the right side road divider due to which 3 persons were died (sic) 5 persons got grievous injuries besides our crew. I, therefore, fully concur with the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the charge No. 1 proved.”

The said order was confirmed in appeal by the complainant to the Dy. Chief Traffic Manager. The order of the Dy. Manager was confirmed and the Appellate Authority also found that :

“I have gone through the subject case, P. case and appeal. It is observed that the appellant has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without taking proper precautionary measures and driven the vehicle carelessly. If he has taken precautionary measures and driven the vehicle carefully the said accident would not have been occurred but he failed to do so. It is also observed that the appellant has driven the vehicle without observing road rules near Shadnagar at about 3.50 hrs. and hit a stationed lorry on its back right side which was parked on the left side of the road which resulted the lorry was pushed to a distance of 20'. Due to this impact of the accident the bus later turned to right and hit a road divider which is 1 foot height on the right side of the road and then the bus was stopped due to spare wheel carrier which resulted 3 passengers were died and grievous injuries to four passengers and also the crew of the bus. Added to it the appellants left leg was amputated later due to the accident. It is observed that the accident report was submitted by the Chief Inspector, Shadnagar that the accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and without anticipation and failed to take precautionary measures. It is also observed that the appellant is responsible for charges and he deserves severe punishment. The appellants version is not true and correct and his explanation is not acceptable and not convincing.”

These reports clearly show that the complainant has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and has violated Condition No. 10(b)(iv) which reads as follows :

“result from the Life Assured committing any breach of law” :

On this ground the opposite party was justified in repudiating the policy.

The other ground taken by the appellant is that the intimation of the accident ought to have been given within the stipulated period of 90 days. Clause 10(a) reads that—

“The disability above referred to must be disability which is the result of an accident and must be total and permanent and such that there is neither then nor at any time thereafter any work, occupation or profession that the Life Assured can ever sufficiently do or follow to earn or obtain any wages, compensation or profit. Accidental injuries which independently of all other causes and within 90 days from the happening of such accident.”

The complainant has not intimated about the accident to the opposite party within 90 days, but has done so only after an year. Based on this ground also, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Appeal allowed.