CHHATTISGARH STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).

Appeal No.FA/14/168

Instituted on : 11.03.2014

1.   Smt. Viswantin Bai, W/o Late Bhim Singh Verma,

Age 60 yars, Caste – Kurmi.

2.   Smt. Sushila Verma,

W/o Late Rdheshyam Verma,

Age 40 years, Profession Government Service,

3.    Ku.Anjali Verma, D/o Late Radheshyam Verma,

Age 9 years, Minor,

Guardian mother Smt. Sushila Verma,

W/o Late Radheshyam Verma, Age 40 years.

All R/o : House No.80, Sarodha Marg,

Gali No.02, Rajmahal Colony, Kawardha,

Tehsil – Kawardha District Kabirdham (C.G.)                …    Appellants

            Vs.

1.      General Manager,

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

No. 01, Village Road, Rashmi Tower, Nangamadakkam,

Opposite Harison Hotel,

Chennai - 34

2.      Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Near Bus Stand, Besides Railway Crossing,

In front of L.I.C. Office, Pandri,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)                                    ......   Respondents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

PRESENT :

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER

HON’'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE  PARTIES :

Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellants.

Shri Deepesh Kumar Thawait, for respondents.

ORAL ORDER

Dated :  19/02/2015

PER :- HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.

            This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the appellants (OPs),  is directed against the order dated 11.02.2014, passed by  the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham / Kawardha (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum") in Complaint Case No.04/13.  By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has  dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint case are that the appellant No.1 (complainant No.1) is widow of deceased Bhim Singh, appellant No.2 (complainant No.2) is  daughter in law of deceased Bhim Singh  and appellant No.3 (complainant No.3) is grand daughter of deceased Bhim Singh.  With the financial help of  Cholamandalam Finance Company Ltd., the deceased Bhim Singh purchased vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.09-T-0212 at the cost of Rs.3,00,000/-.  He obtained personal accidental insurance policy No.A.P.G.0007166-000-00  for the period from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2014.  On 17.02.2012 at about 8 A.M. the deceased Bhim Singh was coming to his house from Gayatri Temple, Kawardha in his bicycle  and when he reached near bunglow of District Judge, he met with an accident and fell down from his bicycle and became unconscious.  He was immediately brought  in his home in unconscious condition.  When he become conscious, he complained of having chest pain, then he was taken to Government District Hospital, Kabirdham where he was admitted and at about  6.00 P.M.  Bhim Singh was discharged from the hospital and  he was taken back to his home.  At about 9 P.M.  He again complained of having chest pain and he was again taken to Government District Hospital, Kabirdham from where he was referred to Raipur.  Deceased Bhim Singh was being taken to Raipur but he died on the way.   The death of deceased Bhim Singh was accidental in nature. Unfortunately on 06.03.2012 some unknown person quarrelled  with Radheshyam Verma, who was guarantor/co-debtor and son of the deceased Bhim Singh, and assaulted him and due to assault by them, Radheshyam Verma had also died, therefore, the appellants (complainants) are entitled to get sum assured under the insurance policy from the respondents (OPs).  The respondents (OPs) did not pay the sum assured under the policy to the appellants (complainants) hence the appellants (complainant) filed complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complainant.  The appellants (complainants) are entitled for getting such reliefs.

3.         The respondents (OPs) filed their written statement and averred that the  complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and no cause had arisen for the appellants (complainants) to prefer this complaint.   The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed summarily on this score alone.   Hence the present complaint filed by the appellants (complainants) is  not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.  The District Forum is having no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the respondents (OPs) is having no branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The appellants (complainants) have failed to disclose all the correct facts and intentionally not come with clean hand and as such the appellants (complainants) cannot be allowed to gain from the same.  The dispute raised by the appellants (complainants) in the present complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The proceeding initiated by  the appellants (complainants)  under the Act is without jurisdiction.  Bhim Singh Vama was not insured by the alleged insurance policy.  The appellants (complainants) had not given any intimation regarding the alleged accident. The respondents (OPs) have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

4.         After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

5.         The appellants (complainants) have filed documents. A-1 is Schedule of Agreement, A-2 is Loan Agreement – Vehicle Finance, A-3 is Irrevocable Power of Attorney, A-4 is Certificate of Insurance, A-5 is Akal evam akasmik mrityu ki suchna panji, inquest, property seizure memo, application for  post mortem examination, report of post mortem,A-6 is Personal Accident – Claim Form, A-7 is death certificate of Shri Radheshyam Verma, A-8 is registered notice dated 03.12.2012 sent by Shri J.R. Sinha, Advocate to the  respondents (OPs), A-9 is postal receipt, A-10 is  letter dated 16.1.2013 sent by Smt. Sushila Verma to  Branch Manager, Indian Post Office, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), A-11  is  letter  sent by Smt. Visvantin Verma to the Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai, A-12 are indoor patient registration slip, out door patient slip, indoor patient letter,  A-13 is  death certificate of Bhim Singh Varma.

6.         Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants (complainants) has argued that on 17.02.2012 at about 8 A.M. the deceased Bhim Singh was coming to his house from Gayatri Temple, Kawardha in his bicycle  and when he reached near bunglow of District Judge, he met with an accident and fell down from his bicycle and became unconscious.  He was immediately brought  in his home in unconscious conscious condition.  When he become conscious, he complained of having chest pain, then he was taken to Govt. District Hospital, Kabirdham where he was admitted and at about  6.00 P.M.  Bhim Singh was discharged from the hospital and  he was taken back  to his home. At about 9 P.M., he again complained of having chest pain and he was again taken to Government District Hospital, Kabirdham from where he was referred to Raipur.  Deceased Bhim Singh was being taken to Raipur but he died on the way.    The death of deceased Bhim Singh was accidental and according to terms and conditions of the insurance policy when the death of the insured caused due to the accident, then the legal heirs are entitled to get the sum assured under the policy.  Unfortunately,  on 06.03.2012 some unknown person quarrelled  with Radheshyam Verma, who was guarantor/co-debtor and son of the deceased Bhim Singh, and assaulted him and due to assault by them, Radheshyam Verma had also died, therefore, the appellants (complainants) are entitled to get sum assured under the insurance policy form the respondents (OPs).  The respondents (OPs) did not pay the sum assured under the policy to the appellants (complainants and thus committed deficiency in service.

7.         Shri Deepesh Kumar Thawait, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (OPs) has argued that death of the deceased Bhim Singh was not accidental.  According to the appellants (complainants) the deceased Bhim Singh had complained chest pain and due to chest pain, he was taken to hospital.  The appellants (complainants) have not been able to  prove that  the chest pain was occurred to deceased Bhim Singh due to his felling down form bicycled.  Post mortem was not conducted.  Even no document has been filed by the appellants (complainants) to show that deceased Bhim Singh fell down from bicycle, therefore,  mere filing of affidavits of the appellants (complainants)  are not sufficient to establish that the death of the deceased Bhim Singh was accidental in nature.   Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission.

8.         We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.

9.         It is not disputed that Bhim Singh was insured with the respondents (OPs) under personal accidental insurance policy No.A.P.G.00067166-000-00 for the period from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2014.   The deceased Bhim Singh had taken loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and son of the deceased Bhim Singh, i.e. Radheshyam Verma was made guarantor of deceased Bhim Singh for obtaining said loan.  Document A-4  Certificate of Insurance issued on 29.10.2011 by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in favour of Bhim Singh Varma in which it is mentioned that  the insurance policy was having coverage for only accidental death.

10.       Now we shall examine whether the death of Bhim Singh Varma was accidental in nature ?

11.       The appellants (complainants) filed  Indoor Patient Registration Slip  (Annexure – 12) (document 16),  Out Door Patient Slip Annexure A-12 ((Document No.17), and  Indoor  Patient Letter (Annexure 12) (Document No.18).

12.       In above documents, only it is mentioned that deceased B.S. Verma was admitted in Government District Hospital, Kabirdham (C.G.) and  he was complained of chest pain.  In the said documents, it is not mentioned that  deceased Bhim Singh Varma fell down from his bicycle and due to accident, he was again taken to hospital and treatment was given to him.  The death certificate of deceased Bhim Singh Varma, Annexure - 13 (document – 20) has also been filed, which   has no relevancy.  In the death certificate  simply it is mentioned that deceased Bhim Singh Varma died   on 18.02.2012 but in the death certificate it is not mentioned that he died due to accident.

13.       The appellants (complainants) have not filed any document which indicates that at the time of incident deceased Bhim Singh Verma was going to his house from Gayatri Temple, Kawardha in his bicycle and  when he reached near bunglow of District Judge, he met with an accident and fell down from his bicycle  and suffered chest pain.  Had deceased Bhim Singh Varma was admitted in the Hospital due to having chest pain, he was referred to Raipur.  It is not sufficient to establish that he was admitted in the Hospital due to accident.  It is not clear  as to how and under what circumstances, Bhim Singh Verma died.  Post mortem  examination was  not conducted.  Therefore, the story of accident of deceased insured is not reliable and acceptable, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly  denied the claim of the appellants (complainants).

14.       Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference of this Commission.

15.       Hence, the appeal filed by the appellants (complainants) being devoid of any merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to the cost of this appeal.

(Justice R.S. Sharma)                        (Ms. Heena Thakkar)               (D.K. Poddar)

         President                                   Member                             Member

                 /02/2015                                  /02/2015                                /02/2015