Date of Filing:14.05.2009<br /> Date of Order: 31.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1121 OF 2009<br /> <br /> 1. Smt. Imroza<br /> W/o. Late Shabbir<br /> <br /> 2. Miss Amreen<br /> D/o. Late Shabbir<br /> Since Minor rep. by her step mother<br /> and Guardian Smt. Imroza<br /> No. 11, 13th Cross, Mukti Nagar<br /> Arabic College Post, Bangalore 45 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.<br /> Motor Claims<br /> 89, SVR Complex, Hosur Main<br /> Road, Madiwala, Bangalore 68<br /> <br /> 2. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.<br /> Operations, TGV Mansions<br /> 6th Floor, Plot # 6.2.1012<br /> Khairatabad, Hyderabad 04<br /> <br /> 3. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.<br /> Zenith House, Keshavrao<br /> Khadre Marg<br /> Opp. Mahalaksmi Racecourse<br /> Mumbai 34 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that the husband of complainant owned bike bearing registration No. KA-03-EX-4786. Complainant No. 2 is daughter of deceased Shabbir. The deceased Shabbir had taken policy for his vehicle from opposite parties. The policy was personal accident policy. In case of death of the policy holder the legal heirs are entitled for sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The insured Shabbir died in the motor accident on 28.04.2007. Policy was valid from 11.10.2006 to 10.10.2007. On the advice of opposite parties claim form for personal accident claim submitted on 14.05.2007. Same was not processed and amount was not paid. Legal notice was issued calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed defence version stating that it is required the complainant to submit certain documents to process the claim. Complaint is barred by time since the insured had died on 28.04.2007. Complainant failed to submit required documents to opposite party. The opposite parties requested the complainant to submit indemnity bond, legal heir certificate, photos, ID proof, address proof. The policy was subjected to various terms and conditions. The opposite parties admitted that policy was issued in the name of Shabbir being registered owner of motor cycle. There is delay in submitting documents by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In fact complainant had delayed for more than two years in forwarding documents to process the claim. Therefore, claim was treated as closed for want of sufficient and relevant documents. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. The affidavit evidence of mother of deceased Shabbir had also been filed.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim amount?<br /> 5. It is admitted fact that deceased Shabbir had taken policy from the opposite parties for his vehicle Bajaj Motor Cycle. The policy covered for the period from 11.10.2006 to 10.10.2007. The policy covered personal accident for owner/driver for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Copy of policy produced. The complainant has produced documents to show that Shabbir had purchased vehicle from Jatti Motors Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has produced certificate of Sub-Inspector of Police, Banasawadi Traffic Police Station, Bangalore. It is stated that the dead body of Shabbir had been subjected for post-mortem examination in Banaswadi Traffic Police Station Crime No. 141/2007 under section 279, 304(A) IPC. Dead body was handed over to Imroza wife of the deceased for conducting funeralarites. Certificate of Sub-Inspector of police is at Ex. C1. The complainant has produced birth certificate of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai wherein it is stated that the complainant Imaroza is wife of Shabbir. The mother of deceased Smt. Ameena Bai had also filed affidavit evidence and she has also stated that complainant Imroza is the second wife of Shabbir and complainant No. 2 is daughter of Shabbir born to first wife Shama Banu who died in the year 1997. The mother also stated in her affidavit that her son died in the road accident on 28.04.2007 leaving behind her, first complainant and second complainant as legal heirs and except these persons there are no legal heirs to the deceased. The first complainant has also filed her affidavit evidence justifying that she is the wife of deceased Shabbir, second complainant is daughter of deceased born to his first wife. So under these circumstances the complainants are entitled for the personal accident benefit of deceased Shabbir who died in the accident on 28.04.2007. Death of Shabbir had been proved by the certificate of Sub-Inspector of Police, Banaswadi Traffic Police Station. Even the opposite parties admitted death of deceased. The only defence is that the complainant has not produced required documents for the settlement of claim. Therefore, it is on account of negligence of complainant herself the claim has been closed. The opposite party had demanded indemnity bond on suitable stamp paper and legal heirs certificate, ID proof, address proof, photos etc. Therefore, there is absolutely no dispute as regards the complainants are entitled for the claim on account of death of Shabbir. The complainants now have produced sufficient proof that first complainant is wife of Shabbir and second complainant is minor daughter of deceased. The mother of the deceased had also filed her affidavit in support of the claim and she has no objection to pay the amount to the complainants. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount. The opposite parties have unnecessarily delayed in settling the claim though the complainant has submitted the claim form on 14.05.2007 itself. The opposite parties could have processed the claim immediately and paid the amount. But for one or another reason the opposite parties had delayed to settle the claim. The complainant has also produced FIR to show that deceased Shabbir had died in the motor accident. So under these circumstances as per the policy the opposite parties are bound to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards Personal Accident Cover. The first complainant being wife of the deceased shall execute indemnity bond as required by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have made inordinate delay in settling the claim without valid and just reasons. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants under the policy No. 3005/50616797/00/000 within 30 days from the date of this order. The complainant is also entitled for interest at 6% p.a. on the above amount from the date of complaint till payment of the claim amount. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />