Complaint filed on 28.03.2013

                                                                                                                                                                Compliant disposed on 27.02.2015 

                      BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR, TELANGANA STATE

PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI B.SURESH, B.A., LL.M., Ist ADDL. DIST. &

SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDENT (FAC)
AND

SRI G.SREENIVASRAO, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR), MEMBER

                                                             FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,TWO THOUSAND FIFTEEN

                                                                                    CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.21 OF 2013

Between:-

Hanumandla Sujatha W/o. Late Srinivas @ Srinivas Reddy, Age 35 years, Occu: House wife R/o. Thangalapally Village of Sircilla Mandal of Karimnagar Dist.

                                                                                                                                        ... Complainant  

                                                       AND

1. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., Ltd. Regd. R/by its Manager, Karimnagar Branch, Karimnagar.

2. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., Ltd. Regd. R/by its Manager, Head Office, “Dare House” 2^nd Floor, NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

                                                                                                                                      … Opposite Parties

          This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 31-10-2014, in the presence of Sri V.Raghuraman Advocate, counsel for complainant, Sri Ch.Venkateshwar Rao for opposite parties no.1 and opposite party no.2 remained exparte and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:

::O R D E R::

          The complainant filed this complaint under Sec 12 of C.P.Act to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,98,337/- towards accident benefit covered under the policy along with interest @ 18% PA from the date of death of deceased and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- for the costs.

The brief averments of the complaint are:

1.       The complainant’s husband during his life time obtained the Group Personal Accident Master Policy from opposite party for an assured sum of Rs.2,98,337/- bearing no.APG-00005967-000-00 and agreement no. XVFPKRF 00000421252 on 31.10.2009 for the policy period from 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2012. On 21.11.2010 one unknown vehicle dashed the complainant’s husband vehicle Suzuki Slingshot CU Motor Cycle on the way to Thummanapally from Kamareddy. Due to which he received grievous injuries and finally he was succumbed to death at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on 22.11.2010. The PS, Kamareddy registered a case in Cr.No.280/2010 U/s.304 (A) IPC Dt: 22.11.2010. After death of her husband the complainant approached the opposite parties several times for settlement of claim covered under the Group Personal Accident Master Policy. As there is no response from opposite party, the complainant got issued a Legal Notice through his counsel to the opposite parties on 04.10.2012 demanding to pay the accident benefit covered under the policy and the same was served on them. Even after receipt of Legal Notice, the opposite parties neither settled nor repudiated the claim which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for necessary relief.

2(a).   The opposite party no.1 in his version submits that the complainant and the deceased are not “Consumers” of the opposite party’s Insurance Company. They have not entered into any agreement with the deceased or with the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the opposite party’s Insurance Company and complainant and deceased. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The deceased had not obtained any policy, but obtained a loan from said M/s.Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd and purchased Motor Cycle AP-15-AV-2171. Said Motor Cycle was hypothecated to the said M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited, who obtained policy. Under the said policy M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited is entitled to claim the amount. The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount under the said policy. M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited is a necessary party to decide the case and as per their information some loan amount is pending in respect of vehicle loan obtained by the deceased. The complainant has not approached the said M/s. Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited also.

b).      Further submits that the opposite party’s Insurance Company had not received any claim intimation nor received any claim in respect of death for the deceased Hanmandla Srinivas Reddy either orally or in writing from the complainant. Therefore, the question of settling the claim of the complainant does not arise. Without claim intimation and required document, it is not possible to this opposite party’s Insurance Company to settle the claim of the complainant. There is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party’s Insurance Company, therefore the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

c).      The opposite party no.2 remained exparte.

3.       The complainant led the evidence with documentary proof and got it marked from Ex.A1 to A8. The opposite party no.1 filed only one document and marked it as Ex.B1.

4.       Now the point for consideration is whether the opposite parties are responsible for the deficiency in service against the complainant, if so, To what relief?

5.       POINT: The husband of the complainant died in an accident on 22.11.2010 near Kamareddy and the Kamareddy P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.280/2010 U/s.304A IPC on 22.11.2010. This is supported by FIR as Ex.A1 & A2, Postmortem Examination as Ex.A3 and Final Report of P.S. Dt: 30.12.2010 which is marked as Ex.A5. There is no dispute that the deceased obtained the Certificate of Insurance under the Group Personal Accident Master Policy. It was issued in the name of Ms.Cholamandalam DBM Finance Limited. Whereas after the death of the deceased it was averred that the complainant (wife) made several requests to the opposite parties, as there was no response from them, she got issued a Legal Notice Dt: 04.10.2012 (Ex.A8) to the Head Office of Chennai i.e., opposite party no.2 herein. But the opposite parties have not responded to the Legal Notice also. In their written version, the opposite party denied that the complainant and the deceased are consumers and they ought to have made Ms.Cholamandalam DBM Finance Limited as a necessary party for the said accident policy of the deceased and finally the opposite party no.1 said he had not received any claim form, as such he cannot be held responsible for the deficiency in service in the instant case.

6.       On careful perusal of the material before the Forum Ex.A6 is the Certificate of Insurance in the name of the deceased who was an insured person and the period of the policy was from 1^st September, 2009 to 31^st August, 2012, with a coverage of “accidental death only” and the principal sum insured was Rs.2,98,337/- only. Ex.B1 which is the copy of Ex.A6 along with terms and conditions for the Personal Accident Insurance Policy with title Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., i.e., opposite party no.2 herein and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, opposite parties are liable to pay the principal sum insured to the spouse i.e., legal wife of the assured person, herein the complainant. As the death occurred on 22.11.2010 which is during the insured period of the said policy, therefore the complainant is entitled for the accidental benefits under the said policy. However, the complainant has not submitted documentary proof to support that she has made a claim for the said policy under Personal Accident Policy of her husband. Only the Legal Notice Dt: 04.10.2012 (Ex.A8) which is addressed to opposite party no.2 supports the contention of the complainant that she made several requests to the opposite parties insisting on the claim amount which is entitled by her.

          During the course of proceedings the complainant filed I.A. No.70 of 2014 in the instant case to implead M/s.Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd as the opposite party no.3 in case of liability is fastened against the complainant who hypothecated the vehicle to the said finance. The proposed opposite party no.3 in his counter requested to direct the respondent/opposite party no.1 & 2 to pay the due amount of Rs.60,462/- to opposite party no.3 (financier). However the I.A. was closed on 31.10.2014 as mutually agreeing to the point raised by the proposed opposite party no.3.

10.     Inorder to meet the ends of justice the complainant who is the wife of the deceased is entitled to claim the principal sum insured under the Group Personal Accident Master Policy (Insurance Policy) as per the terms and conditions (Ex.B1). Here we are of the view that on receiving the Legal Notice (Ex.A8) the opposite party no.2 must have put in some effort directing the opposite party no.1 to settle the claim of the complainant. Whereas, they kept silent totally ignoring the Legal Notice which amounts to deficiency in service and negligence. So, on this ground the opposite parties come under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act for necessary relief to the consumer/complainant herein.

11.     In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly or severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,337/- (principal insured) minus Rs.60,462/- due amount to be paid to M/s.Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd (Financier) and pay accidental death benefit assured Rs.12,000/- covered under the policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e., 28.03.2013 and also directed to pay Rs.7,000/- towards compensation including costs. Time for compliance is 30 days.

          Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her and after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 27^th day of February, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT(FAC)

NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:                       

1. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of FIR No. 280 issued by S.I. of Police, Kamareddy Dt: 22.11.2010.
2. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of Inquest Report issued by S.I. of Police, Kamareddy Dt: 25.11.2010.
3. Ex.A3 is the photo copy of Requisition for Postmortem Examination Dt: 25.11.2010.
4. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Death Certificate (24.11.2010) of deceased Srinivas Dt: 27.12.2010.
5. Ex.A5 is the photo copy of Final Report – Accidental  U/s.173 Cr.P.C. Dt: 30.12.2010.
6. Ex.A6 is the original Certificate of Insurance Dt: 31.10.2009.
7. Ex.A7 is the photo copy of Certificate of Registration in the name of Hanumandla Srinivas Reddy (deceased policy holder) Dt: 08.12.2010.
8. Ex.A8 is the photo copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for the complainant Dt: 04.10.2012.  

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 is the certified copy of Certificate of insurance with 7 pages (Accidental benefits mentioned in 7^th page).

       Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-

                         MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT(FAC)