M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The complainants son, by name Karuppusamy, who was the owner of the vehicle, bearing Regn. No.TN-37-X-0357, had taken insurance policy, with the opposite party, including personal accident coverage for owner-driver, for Rs.2 lakhs, which was in force, even on the date of the accident viz. 28.7.2004, in which the complainants son sustained injury and succumbed to the same. Based upon the Personal Accident coverage, when a claim was lodged, it was negatived/ repudiated by the opposite parties/appellants, on the grounds the son of the complaiant, who drew the vehicle, on the fateful day, was not possessing valid license, and therefore they are not answerable to the claim, which is unjustifiable, illegal, amounting to deficiency in service, and in this view, the complainant is entitled to the sum assured. For this purpose, a consumer complaint came to be filed.
(3.) The opposite party, admitting the insurance given by them, including the personal accident coverage, opposed the claim, that as per the conditions available in the policy, in order to claim personal accident cover, for owner-driver, he should have possessed valid -effective driving license, in accordance with the provision of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which he did not possess, that on that basis alone, repudiation was made, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying further averments also.;