Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/64/2021

Smt.Manjula w/o late Gadari Palaiah.B - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Bajaj Allianz General Insurance co .Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.H.Srinivas

13 Sep 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON: 27/08/2021

DISPOSED      ON: 13/09/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:64/2021

DATED: 13th September 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,       MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Smt. Manjula W/o Late Gadri Palaiah B, Aged about 32 years, 2. Tarun G. S/o Late Gadri Palaiah B, aged about 13 years, 3. Srujana G. S/o Late gadri Palaiah B, Aged about 10 years. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors represented by their Natural Guardian Mother-Smt. Manjula W/o Late Gadri palaiah, R/o 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, Behind post Office, Railway Station, Chitradurga. (Rep., by Sri. H. Srinivas,   Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Golden Height Complex, Rajaji Nagara, 59th C Cross, 4th Block, Bangalore-560010. Police No.OG-214410-1803-00000020 From 20/05/2020 to 19/05/2021 Obamma W/o Boraiah Aged about 60 years, Boraiah S/o Obaiah Aged about 65 years. Both are   R/o Uppa Nayakanahalli Village, Sondekola Post, Chitradurga Taluk.

BY SRI. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

-:ORDERS ON MAI NTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT:-

                The complainant’s have filed this complaint against Op’s to direct the Ops to settle the above claim of the complainant under the P.A. for owner-driver benefit for Rs. 15,00,000/- which is of policy declared value and to grant Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, loss of income till this date sustained by the complainant along with interest at 18% p.a from the date of accident and to pass such other reliefs.

The facts of the complaint are:

        The complainant 1 is the wife and 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Gadri Palaiah, the Gadri Palaiah was aged about 37 years and married complainant-1, is the legally wedded wife of Gadri Palaiah. Deceased Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah was the Driver of the vehicle i.e., Auto Rikshaw bearing its No. KA-16/D-4059. The complainant husband was doing the driving work in Auto Rikshaw for the purpose of his lively hood and the entire income from driving the said vehicle which has been used for the purpose of family necessity. The deceased Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah was working under the employment of one lokesh S/o Shivamurthappa and said Lokesh has insured his vehicle bearing No. KA-16-D-4059 with Op.1 insurance Company vide policy no. OG21-4410-1803-00000020 for the period from 20/05/2020 to 19/05/2021 and the said policy covers PA claim for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- since Op-1 company has collected a sum of Rs. 331/- from Lokesh.

        On 22/07/2020 at about 8 pm when deceased Godri Palaiah S/o Boraiah was driving vehicle met with an accident when it came near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Chitradurga Taluk with this Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah died due to accidental injuries and he has been taken to Government Hospital, Chitradurga and again referred to SSIMS Hospital, Davanagere even in spite of better treatment due to accidental injuries deceased Gadri Palaiah was died in the said Hospital. Later post mortem was conducted, dead body was handed over to complainant No.1 and she has brought the dead body in a rented van and funeralised as per her customs in Chitradurga.

        The Complainant No.1 intimated the same to Op.1 insurance Company regarding accident dated 22/07/2020 and death of Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah and requested to settle the P.A benefit to Gadri Palaiah, in spite of it Ops have not settle the claim, with this complainant-1 issued legal notice through her Advocate on 21/09/2020, even on receipt of the same by Op’s, they have not settled the claim nor repudiated the claim even after collecting policy copy, DL of Driver deceased Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah, permit, FC of Auto Rickshaw bearing No:KA-16-D-4059 and also by collecting entire police papers from the complainant through legal notice. Op-1 have not settled the PA claim. Complainant visited No., of times to Branch office at Bangalore for settlement but Op failed to settle the claim of the complainant for the reasons best known to them.

        On perusal of facts of the complaint and documents which reveals that, by name Thimmaraju S/o Chikkthimmappa lodged complaint before Chitradurga police against Auto Driver deceased Gadri Palaiah S/o Boraiah for having driven auto rash and negligently and caused Accident.

        Further on perusal of policy issued by Op which is very clear “Commercial vehicle package policy certificate cum policy schedule” and name of the insured is Mr. Lokesh S/o Shivamurthappa who is said to be the owner of auto. To substantiate with regard to complainant No.1 husband, deceased Gadri Palaiah is working as a Driver under Mr. Lokesh, she has not produced any proof for the same.

        On perusal of the policy he is not a beneficiary as deceased Gadri Palaiah has not obtained the policy, as he has not paid consideration to Op, with this he has not availed service from them. Apart from this Mr. Lokesh, as a owner of the vehicle not applied for PA claim on behalf of Deceased Gadri Palaiah. On perusal of entire records submitted by complainant, complainant-1 husband Gadri Palaiah is not covered under the definition of Consumer and the policy stands in the name of Mr. Lokesh, also the same is Commercial vehicle package policy. With all the above observations the complaint is not maintainable.

        The complainant filed a Citation Copy which was decided before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 9393 of 2019 between Ramkhiladi and another-Appellant V/s  The united India Insurance Company Anr-Respondent. As per this the facts are entirely different from the case on hand, with this the same is not relevant to the above said complaint. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

-:ORDER:-

        The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission for adjudication and the same is hereby rejected.

 

 

Lady Member                 Member                        President

kms