- (1.) AS both these appeals under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are directed against the same order dated 17.11.2004 in Complaint No. 157/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the insurer appellant in Appeal No. 594/04 to pay to the complainant (appellant in Appeal No. 589/04) Rs. 1,00,000/ - on account of death in accident of deceased Jainarayan Sharma, husband of the said complaint.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the deceased Jainarayan Sharma had purchased a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. O4 -CA -3910 which was comprehensively insured with the opposite party/insurer. Coverage of risk under the said policy was from 24.7.2002 to 23.7.2003. It is now also not in dispute that on 31.5.2003, while the deceased Jainarayan Sharma was driving the said motor cycle and was going towards Gyan Ganga School, on Vidhan Sabha road, met with an accident as a truck coming from behind dashed the motor cycle resulting in fatal injury to Jainarayan Sharma.
(3.) ACCORDING to the averments in the complaint the complainant the wife of the deceased, informed about the accident to O.P./insurer on 24.6.2003. She also submitted claim form and documents on 4.11.2003 and 21.11.2003 respectively. It was further averred that O.P./insurer repudiated the claim of the complainant by its letter dated 10.5.2004 (wrongly mentioned in the said letter as 10.5.2003). The complainant also averred that the vehicle was damaged and prayed that Rs. 38,619/ -, the value of the vehicle with interest as also compensation, for deficiency in service, be awarded. The O.P./insurer in its written version averred that the deceased Jainarayan Sharma had obtained a learning licence which was effective from 11.10.2002 to 10.4.2003. It was also averred that the deceased Jainarayan Sharma on the date of accident was not holding any valid licence and was not driving the vehicle with L plate displayed on the motor cycle and also that no licensed driver was accompanying, as was required under the rules. It was, therefore, averred that as the said vehicle was driven in contravention of terms of policy, the complainant was not entitled to any benefit thereunder, and the repudiation of the complaint s claim was justified.;