BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 18th day of January, 2007
C.C No. 118/2006
Smt. Y.Savitramma, W/o. Late. Y. Rama Mohan Reddy, Aged 45 years, Hindu,
R/o. Ramireddypalli (V), Sanjamal (M), Kurnool district. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool.
2. The Branch Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited,
Nandyal Branch, Kurnool district. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A. Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. K.Muralidhar Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1, and 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady member)
1. This consumer complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under policy bearing No. 051102/47/98/56971 with 24% interest per annum, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the wife of Late Y. Ramamohan Reddy who insured his life under J.P.A policy bearing No. 651102/47/98/56971 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and nominated the complainant as his nominee. On 24.6.2002 late Y.Ramamohan Reddy while coming on Motor Cycle from Panyam to Neravad, a tipper bearing No. AAA-7959 coming from Nandyal hit the deceased and resulted in instantaneous death. The policy was inforce on the date of death and the death intimation was given to opposite party No.1 and complied all formalities while submitting the claim form. The opposite parties demanded to produce Driving Licence of late Y. Ramamohan Reddy. The driving licence was no condition precedent for settling the claim of the complainant and the opposite parties without any reasons delaying settlement on some pretext or other, being vexed complainant got issued legal notice dated 8.7.2005 expressing her inability to produce driving licence and demanded to settle the claim. The opposite parties replied dated:15.2.2005 reiterating its stand. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties in not settling the claim of the complainant is sufficient for the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dated 15.2.2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to complainant (2) office copy of legal notice dated 8.7.2005 issue by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties along with speed post receipt and acknowledgement and (3) letter dated 23.11.2005 of opposite party No.1 addressed to complainant’s advocate, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and suitable replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that Y. Ramamohan Reddy as the holder of JPA policy and died on 24.6.2002 in a road accident while the policy was inforce and nominated the complainant as his nominee and the claim form was submitted by the complainant on 12.8.2002 without necessary documents. On 20.8.2002 the opposite party No.1 addressed letter to the complainant for production of driving licence of the deceased as the death was in road accident but there was no reply from the complainant. Again on 15.2.2005 the opposite parties issued a reminder letter for production of necessary document by the complainant. As there is a provision in the policy that the company will not be liable to pay any amount if the death of the insured is occurred in the course of insured committing breach of law and the non holding of licence amounts to breach of law, as the death of policy holder was in a road accident. But surprisingly the complainant opted for issuance of legal notice dated 8.7.2005 after 5 months of reminder letter of opposite parties. The alleged delay on part of opposite parties is false and the said delay is on the part of complainant for remaining silent for many years. It further submits that the complaint is barred by limitation and the claim is not repudiated by opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dated 12.8.2002 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2 (2) letter dated 20.8.2002 of opposite party No.2 addressed to the complainant and (3) office copy of policy issued to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in re-iteration of its written version. The opposite party No.1 and 2 caused interrogatories to the complainant and opposite party No.1 replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is what to relief the complainant is entitle alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. It is the case of the complainant that she is the wife of late Y.Rama mohan Reddy who insured his life with opposite parties under J.P.A policy bearing No. 051102/47/98/56971for Rs.1,00,000/-. On 24.6.2002 the policy holder while coming from Panyam to Neravad a tipper bearing No. AAA-7959 coming from opposite direction hit the policy holder resulted in instantaneous death of policy holder. On the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite party demanded for production of driving licence of the decease vide Ex B.2 letter dt:12.8.2002 and Ex A.1 letter dt 15.2.2005, the complainant there after got issued legal notice vide Ex A.2 dt 8.7.2005 expressing her inability to submit driving licence of the deceased and the opposite parties replied vide Ex B.3 to bear the delay as the matter has been persued. But the opposite parties in their written version alleges that particulars of driving licence are necessary for setting the claim as there is a provision the policy that insurance company will not be liable if the death occurred in the course of insured committing breach of law, and the non holding of licence by the deceased policy holder amounts to breach of law.
9. So far as the facts of this case is concerned there are hardly any dispute, the only question is can the insurance company reject a claim solely on the ground that the policy holder did not have a licence. The opposite parties did not place any cogent relevant material on record to prove that the accident in which the policy holder died occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the policy holder and further the opposite parties failed to prove that the accident occurred at the fault of Y.Rama mohan Reddy, (deceased policy holder) as there was no fault of Y. Rama mohan Reddy (deceased) it is immaterial whether the deceased was holding licence or not. The counsel for complainant relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Jithendra Kumar Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others reported in IV (2003) SLT 497 = 2003 (3) TAC.9 (SC) = 1986-2004 consumer 7828, wherein it has been laid down that the Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim solely on the ground that the policy holder who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a licence. In the present case there is no material to say that the accident in which the deceased policy holder death occurred on account of any rash or negligent driving of his motor cycle. Hence, the Insurance Company cannot insist for driving licence of the deceased policy holder. The other decision relied by the complainant are (1) Chhattisgarh State Commission between New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Savitri Devi reported in III (2005) CPJ pg 616, it was held that when deceased had obtained already licence though period expired, he is not disentitled to hold valid driving licence and the claim was treated as on non-standard claim (2) Uttar Pradesh State Commission between Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs Rakesh Kumar reported in III (2004) CPJ pg 291, it was held that when truck smashed the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle holding driving licence or not is irrelevant (3) National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission between Prithvi Raj Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd reported in II 2005 CPJ pg 69, this decision has little relevancy for appreciation in this case (4) Punjab State Commission between United India Insurance Company Ltd Vs Karam Sales corporation reported in IV 2006 CPJ pg 261, where in it was held that when a stationary vehicle is hit by any vehicle the question of validity of licence of driver of stationary vehicle is wholly irrelevant.
10. Hence, in the light of the above decisions and relaying on the decision of Supreme Court the Insurance Company cannot insist for driving licence of the deceased policy holder for settlement of the claim and there by dodging for the settlement of claim is certainly amounting to deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
11. The other objection of opposite parties is that there is no limitation for the complainant to file this case in this Forum. As there being no settlement of claim by the insurance company in either way so far, the cause of action of the complainant for prosecuting this case is for non settlement of claim for years together. As the same situation existed at the time of filling of this case and the said non-settlement of the claim insisting for the driving licence of the deceased which is not required for settlement of claim. The cause of action of the complainant against the Insurance Company being continuous there is no point from which the limitation starts. Hence, the objection taken by the opposite parties as to limitation and decisions cited by opposite party reported in (1) 2002 5 ALT pg 30 National commission between Kohinoor Tarpaulin Industry Vs National Insurance Company Ltd and (2) 2002 (2) ALT pg 30 National Commission between M/s Zenith Computer Ltd Vs Managing Director, New India Insurance Company Ltd and other doesn’t hold good and has little relevancy its for appreciation in this case.
12. To conclude, following the decision of Supreme Court and the discussions made above, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled to get the insured amount under the policy of her husband and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- covered under the policy bearing No. 051102/47/98/56971of
Y. Rama Mohan Reddy with 9% interest per annum from the date of complaint i.e 21.8.2006 till realization, within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 18th day of January, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Letter, Dt:15-02-2005 of opposite party No.2 addressed to complainant
for production of Driving License.
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, Dt:08-07-2005 issued to opposite party No.2
along with postal receipts & acknowledgement.
Ex.A3 Letter, Dt:23-11-2005 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant counsel.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Letter, Dt:12-08-2002 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.2.
Ex.B2 Letter, Dt:20-08-2002 of opposite party No.2 addressed to complainant.
Ex.B3 Office copy of the policy (Janata Personal Accident Insurance policy)
Agency No.305/10.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.A. Prabhakara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri K.Muralidhar, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
