BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 against the OP for the following reliefs:-

(a) Direct the OP company to pay policy amount/claim or benefits of LIC policy No.364966874 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 364344983 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

(b) Award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental anguish and agony.

(c) Award an amount of Rs.50,000/- as expenses, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

B.N.Jayadeva husband of the complainant was the policy holder of LIC policy bearing No.364966874 for sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and another policy bearing No.364344983 for sum assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. It is further case of the complainant that on 25.09.2017 at about 7.15 PM her husband B.N.Jayadeva was mmoving on his bike towards Hebbur side on Kunigal-Tumkur Road and at the time car bearing NO.KA-05-AE-4444 came from the same direction with speed, rash and negligent manner hit the bike of B.N.Jayadeva, who succumbed to the injury on 26.09.2017 at 1.45.  The driver of the car failed to stop the vehicle and escape from the spot.

4. The complainant set the criminal law into motion by filing complaint in Kunigal police station who have registered the case.  Her husband succumbed to injuries due to the accident.  However, police have filed C report and Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Kunigal closed the file.

5. Even though, Ops have paid insurance amount, but rejected accident benefit to the complainant.  This rejection amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint. 

6. After receipt of notice, the OP appeared through its counsel but, failed to file version.  However, on the same day, version came to be filed i.e. on 19.04.2021.  The OP contends that the complaint is not tenable.  Kunigal police have filed a C report and accidental claim of the complainant is false.  But, it is also not genuine.  The OP admits issuance of two policies for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- in favouor of B.N.Jayadeva.  The accidental death of B.N.Jayadeva is not proved.  There is no deficiency of service.  The OP s to dismiss the complaint.

7. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and relies documents.  The affidavit evidence of Manager of OP has been filed with six documents.  No argument is advanced.   

8. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

9. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  In the negative

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

10. Point Nos.1 and 2:  It is admitted and proved fact that B.N.Jayadeva husband of the complainant took two policies for sum insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively.  The death of B.N.Jayadeva is not in dispute.  According to the complainant, her husband succumbed to the injuries caused in the road traffic accident dated 25.09.2017.  The complainant set the criminal law into motion by filing a memo in Kunigal police station.  On the basis of the complaint, police have registered the case at Cri. No.482/ on their file.  The police conducted the investigation, collected the post-mortem report and got prepared spot mahazar and inquest mahazar.  The witness cited in the inquest mahazar are not eye-witness.  The report of the motor vehicle inspector indicates that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. The investigation police have filed C report.  Even though Puttegowda has been cited as eye-witness to the accident in the C report, but Puttegowda is not examined in this case, to prove the theory of motor accident.  Complainant is not an eye-witness to the accident.
11. Annexure-A 11 death certificate indicates death of B.V.Jayadeva on 26.09.2017.  The complainant admits in her letter under Annexure-A12 that she received insurance amount.  But, she is not received accident benefit.  The OP issued a letter dated 18.10.2019 stating that the police filed a final report. Under Annexure-A14 dated 06.11.2019, the OP repudiated the claim that genuineness of the accident could be established from C report.  It is not the case of the complainant that she has filed objections to the C report or challenged the acceptance of the C report.  When C report is filed, the theory of accidental death of B.N.Jayadeva is not established.  When the complainant fails to establish the theory of death of her husband in the accident, she cannot brand  that OP there is a deficiency on the part of OP. 
12. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, when the complainant fails to prove death of her husband in vehicle accident, complaint requires to be rejected.     We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 
3. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents with extra pleadings to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 24^th day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-