Date of filing:8.5.2013
Date of Disposal:4.2.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014.
C.C.No.83 OF 2013.
Between :
Yarramaneni Krishna Rao, S/o Sivaiah, Hindu, 52 years, Employment,R/o Ongole, Prakasam District.
….. Complainant.
And
M/s I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, Door No.39-1-82/A, 6th Floor, Anjaneya Towers, Near Anjaneya Jewellary, Venkateswara Puram, M.G.Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10.
…..Opposite Party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 20.1.2014 in the presence of C.Sreepathi Rao, Counsel for complainant and Sri T.Veerabhadra Rao, Counsel for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by complainant under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of death of deceased i.e. 20.4.2010 till realization, to pay Rs.50000/- towards compensation for mental agony, costs of complaint and other reliefs.
1. The brief facts of the case which lead to filing the present complaint are that the brother of complainant by name Yarramaneni Koteswara Rao obtained insurance policy bearing No. 3001/53799914/02/000 for his Ford Fiesta vehicle bearing No. AP 27 L 9369 from the opposite party on 9.3.2010 for the period from 31.3.2010 to 30.3.2011 and by virtue of the policy, the P.A for unnamed passenger is Rs.7,50,000/- besides coverage of other risks. It is further submitted that on 20.4.2010 the complainant along with his wife Annapurnamma, daughter Prudhvi Rani and son-in-law Bodapati Anil Kumar were returning from Chennai in the said car to reach Ongole and when they crossed the Valluramma Temple, the complainant's eyes dazzled and hit the divider and turned turtle. In the said accident, all of them sustained injuries and the wife of complainant i.e. Annapurnamma was referred to various hospitals for treatment and died on 21.5.2010 at Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai. The Ongole Taluq P.S registered a case in Cr.No.159/2010. Thereafter the insured informed about the accident to opposite party's office at Mumbai and requested to issue claim form. While so, on 19.8.2010 the opposite party people at Hyderabad addressed a letter requesting the insured to furnish relevant documents for processing of claim. Accordingly the complainant submitted the documents as required by the opposite party. Finally the opposite party sent a cheque bearing No.329897, dt.17.8.2012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai for Rs.1,50,000/- which was received by the complainant just three days prior to its expiry and as such he could not present the same for encashment. It is further submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the P.A for unnamed passenger is Rs.7,50,000/- and as such the opposite party violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby committed deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a notice dt.18.3.2013 to the opposite party with a demand to settle the claim. The opposite party received the notice, but failed to comply with the demand of complainant. Hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed version denying the material allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party through its version has reproduced the terms and conditions of policy and the correspondence that took place between the complainant and opposite party. It is further contended that the opposite party has paid the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the terms and conditions of policy and according to IMT 16, which deals with personal accident to unnamed passengers other than insured and the paid driver and cleaner and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in settling the claim. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and finally prays to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The Legal Manager of opposite party filed chief affidavit and the copy of policy was marked as Ex.B1.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record. Complainant filed written arguments.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim of complainant?
- If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
POINT NO.1:-
6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), the undisputed facts and admitted facts are that the brother of complainant Y.Koteswara Rao obtained policy from the opposite party vide policy No.3001/53799914/02/000 for his Ford Fiesta car bearing No. AP 27 L 9369 by paying requisite premium. The said policy is in force from 31.3.2010 to 30.3.2011. Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 discloses the said facts. According to the complainant the said car met with an accident on 20.4.2010 after crossing Valluramma Temple while himself, his wife and other family members are travelling in the said car and in the said accident, all of them sustained injuries, but his wife later succumbed to injuries at hospital while undergoing treatment. Ex.A1 FIR discloses the factum of accident etc., The main grievance of the complainant is that, on request by the opposite party people, he has submitted all the required documents for settlement of claim. But the opposite party settled the claim at Rs.1,50,000/- instead of Rs.7,50,000/- and issued cheque just three days prior to expiry under Ex.A3 and thereby committed deficiency in service. Though the complainant got issued notice under Ex.A4, which was received by the opposite party under Ex.A5, the opposite party failed to comply with the demand.
7. As seen from the rival contentions, it can be understood that the complainant is claiming Rs.7,50,000/- for the death of his wife as per Ex.A1 policy. On the other hand, the contention of opposite party is that the complainant is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- as per Ex.B1 policy. In view of the above, a careful perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 policies, there are lot of discrepancies in the said policies. Though the policy number, vehicle number, engine number and chasis number are same, the policy issuing office, date of issuance of policy are different. Further both the parties failed to file original copy of policy before this Forum. As such this Forum has no option than to proceed with the contents mentioned in the copies of policies. As seen from Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 policies, the total premium paid by the insured is one and same i.e. Rs.8,018/-. Further as seen from Ex.A1 policy, under the head 'Liability (B), the PA for unnamed passenger Rs.7,50,000/- and in that regard, the premium paid by the insured is Rs.375/-. Further as seen from Ex.A1 policy, the PA cover for owner-driver Rs.2,00,000/- and for that the insured paid Rs.100/- as premium. But as seen from Ex.B1 policy, under the head 'Liability (B), the unnamed PA for five persons of Rs.1,50,000/- each which comes to Rs.7,50,000/- and the premium paid is Rs.375-00. Further as seen from Ex.A1 policy, PA cover for owner-driver of Rs.2,00,000/- and premium paid Rs.100/-. As such it is clear that the PA cover for owner-driver is Rs.2,00,000/- as seen from both policies and the premium paid is also same. When the owner-driver are insured for Rs.2,00,000/- on payment of Rs.100/-, the question of payment of Rs.7,50,000/- for each passenger, as claimed by complainant on payment of Rs.375/- as premium looked absurd. There is no dispute with regard to seating capacity of five passengers. Then taking insurance for one unnamed passenger only is not convincing. As such we are inclined to place reliance on Ex.B1 policy, which is clearly disclosing that unnamed PA cover for five persons of Rs.1,50,000/- each and found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.
8. Now with regard to issuance of cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned, the contention of complainant is that the cheque was sent just 3 days prior to expiry and as such he could not encash the same. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that they have promptly sent the cheque dt.17.8.2012 for Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and that he received the same and could not present the same as he misunderstood that he has entitled to Rs.7,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. As seen from the record, the complainant and opposite party has not placed any material with regard to the correspondence that took place between them with regard to issuance of cheque. Except the oral statements of parties, there is no material on record to show that the complainant received the cheque before three days of expiry or that the opposite party sent the cheque well within time. However, Ex.A3 cheque discloses the date as 17.8.2012. Whatever may be the reason, from then now the six months period lapsed. In view of the discussion in foregoing paragraphs the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- only. As such the said cheque has to be revalidated. Further we are not inclined to grant any compensation and interest or costs, in view of the circumstances of the case.
POINT No.2:-
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lakh and fifty thousand rupees only) to the complainant by revalidating the earlier cheque under Ex.A3 or by issuing a fresh cheque for the said amount. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is directed to submit the cheque to the opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order for revalidating the same. The other claims of complainant, if any, shall dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of February, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite party:-
P.W.1 Yarramaneni Krishna Rao D.W.1 Abdul Raheem, Complainant Manager Legal,
(by affidavit) of the opposite party,
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 21.05.2010 Photocopy of F.I.R.
Ex.A.2 . . Photocopy of insurance policy.
Ex.A.3 17.08.2012 Cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-.
Ex.A.4 18.03.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.5 . . Postal acknowledgement.
For the opposite party:-
Ex.B.1 . . True copy of insurance policy.
PRESIDENT
