M/s Veerabhadreshwara Agencies, V/S Smt.Siddamma W/o Late.Sharanayya Swamy, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 5/08

Smt.Siddamma W/o Late.Sharanayya Swamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Veerabhadreshwara Agencies, - Opp.Party(s)

T.M.Swam y

31 Jul 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 5/08

Smt.Siddamma W/o Late.Sharanayya Swamy,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s Veerabhadreshwara Agencies, The Branch Manager, The Regional Manager,IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Siddamma against the Respondents 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- which is the insurance amount of her husband with interest, to award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental shock and agony with cost and other reliefs. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband by name Sharanayyaswamy purchased fertilizers from Respondent No-1 on 14-10-06. Respondent No-2 is the Wholesale Dealer of fertilizers in Raichur. Respondent No-3 is the Insurance Company. At the time of purchase of fertilizers by her husband from Respondent No-1. Respondent No-2 made him to insure accidental benefit insurance policy floated by Respondent No-3 Insurance Company. After obtaining the policy from Respondent No-2 of Respondent No-3 on 20-10-06 insured Sharanayyaswamy fell down from the running Bullock Cart and died due to severe injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter the complainant being the wife of deceased Sharanaswamy enquired the matter with Respondent No- 1 & 2 to settle the insurance amount. Respondent No-2 and Respondent No-3 Insurance Company not settled her claim in-spite of oral and written requests hence she filed this complaint against all the Respondents for to grant relief as prayed in this complaint. 3. Respondent No- 1 to 3 appeared in this case through their Advocate separately and filed their written version separately. The brief facts of the written version filed by the Respondent No-1 are that he received complaint from the complainant regarding death of her husband and claiming insurance amount he advised the complainant to approach the Respondent No-2 in that regard. He is only a retail seller of the Respondent No-2s product there was no negligence on his part. He suitably advised the complainant to take advise of Respondent No-2 for to settle the claim there was no negligence on his part accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint against him among other grounds. 4. The brief facts of the written version filed by the Respondent No-2 are that Respondent No-3 Insurance Company floated Personal Accident Benefit to the farmers. Accordingly he suggested the names of some farmers including the name of deceased Sharanayyaswamy. The policy cover to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- only, the said insurance policy is not linked in any way with his selling of products or purchase of them by the farmers. It is purely a welfare scheme introduced for the benefit of farmers. The complainant filed application before him for to claim the accidental benefit due to death of her husband there was no First Information Report, Post Mortem Report filed by her towards her claim. She was suitably advised to produce records for to send those records to Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company for to settle her claim. But the complainant not furnished those documents as requested by him accordingly no claim petition towards to Respondent No-3, there was no deficiency in service on his part as such he prayed for to dismiss the complaint against him. 5. Respondent No-3 Insurance Company filed its written version by contending that no claim has been made by the complainant directly or through Respondent No-2 to its Insurance Office to consider her claim. Deceased is the member of Group Insurance to the farmers through Respondent No-2, without receipt of claim petition along necessary records insurance company cannot settle the claim of complainant there was no deficiency in service on its part. It is a pre-mature complaint, as complainant not approached Insurance Company to settle her claim accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, at the life time of her husband Sharanayyaswamy he purchased fertilizer from Respondent No-1 who is the dealer of Respondent No-2 which covers the scheme of Group Insurance to the farmers launched by Respondent No-3 Insurance Company for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- and he died on 20-10-06 as he fell from the running Bullock Cart, thereafter she requested Respondent Nos- 1 & 2 in oral as well as in writing for to make payment of the amount under policy of her husband but all these Respondents shown their negligence in settling her claim and thereby all the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the negative against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and duty of Respondent No-3 as stated in the final order of this judgement. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 8. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence and additional affidavit-evidence of complaint are filed and she was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of eye-witness to the accident of Sharanayyaswamy is filed who is noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. 9. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Respondent No-1 was filed he was noted as RW-1, affidavit-evidence of the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent No-2 is filed who is noted as RW-2 and affidavit-evidence of C.S.C. of Respondent No-3 was filed he was noted as RW-3. Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. 10. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties their respective documentary evidences and arguments advanced on both sides, we are of the view that none of these Respondents have disputed the relationship of complainant with deceased Sharanayyaswamy as the complainant is the wife of him. 11. Death of Sharanayyaswamy as on 20-12-06 as per death certificate at Ex.P-4, holding of Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy by deceased at his life time floated by Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company through Respondent No-2 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide policy at Ex.R-1 are not in dispute even though the complainant is claiming that the sum assured in the policy for Rs. 30,000/-. It is further undisputed fact that deceased Sharanayyaswamy at his life time purchased fertilizers from Respondent No-1s shop who is the dealer of the products of Respondent No-2 on 14-10-06 vide Bill No. 1981. 12. Keeping in view of the above undisputed facts in between the parties, now we have to see as to whether the complainant has proved the death of her husband Sharanayyaswamy due to fall from the running Bullock Cart as contended in this complaint for to entitle the accidental benefit claim under the said insurance policy from the Respondent No-3. Document at Ex.P-3 a letter written by Respondent No-2 to the complainant shows that the complainant filed claim petition only before him without any records to substantiate that the said Sharanayyaswamy died in the accident he requested in his letter to produce FIR copy, Panchanama copy and other records to send her claim to Respondent No-3. 13. The learned advocate for Respondent No-3 contended before us that the Insurance Company has not at all received any claim petition either from the complainant directly or through Respondent No-2, as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company, this complaint is pre-mature complaint and thereby it is not maintainable against the Insurance Company. 14. In-view of the contentions and Rival contentions raised before us by the parties, first we have to decide as to whether the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy has to be proved by the complainant only by submitting FIR copy, PM Report and other police records for to claim benefit under the policy of her husband vide letter Ex.P-3 letter of Respondent No-2. 15. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that to prove the accidental death of her husband Sharanayyaswamy only by producing copy of FIR, PM Report and other police records. She can also prove the said accidental death of her husband by filing her own affidavit-evidence and the affidavit-evidence of PW-2 who is by name Veeranna as eye witness to the accident. In support of his submission, he relied on the ruling reported in 2000(1) CPR 32 Branch Manager LIC of India V/s. Rajkumar Mishra. 16. In this case their lordship of Uttar Pradesh State Commission held in similar case, as filing of FIR or PME Report are not necessary documents to consider the claim petition under such policy. We have also referred other three recent rulings which are as under:- (1) 2007(2) CPR 141 Smt. Zudiyabebi and Others V/s. General Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., and Another (2) 2008(4) CPR 332 NC case State of Himachal Pradesh through its Commissioner Cum General Manager V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited., and Others. (3) 2008(3) CPR 249 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Pramila Balaji Achuwali and Others. 17. In the above said three rulings, their lordships of the National Commission as well as the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh held as while considering the accidental benefit under the policy claimaints need not produce FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report, Spot Panchanama etc., to prove accidental death of deceased. Further their lordships have observed that the repudiation of claims under such policy on the ground that FIR, PM Report and other police records not filed is not correct. 18. Keeping in view of the observations of the Honble National Commission as well as the Honble State Commission of Uttar Pradesh, now we have to see as to whether demand made by Respondent No-2 to the complainant for to produce copy of FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report, Spot Panchanama etc., vide his letter at Ex.P-3 is justified or not. We are of the view that, to prove the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy by his wife complainant, the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 her additional affidavit-evidence and affidavit-evidence of eye witness of PW-2 Veeranna are quite sufficient, there are no contrary circumstance out coming from the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 to RW-3 to reject the testimony of them Insurance policy is based on mutual trust between the parties, as such we are of the view that PW-1 & PW-2 are trustworthy witness to place reliance on them. Accordingly we have accepted the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 to come to the conclusion that the said Sharanayyaswamy died on 20-10-06 by falling from the running Bullock Cart and thereby the complainant being the legally wedded wife of deceased is entitled to claim the policy amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Non- production of FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report and Sport Panchanama is not a fatal to the case of complainant, as such we have rejected the contention of Respondent No-2. 19. As regards to the liability of making the payment under such policy amount, we have taken note of the entire case of Respondent No- 1, 2 and 3. Admittedly Respondent No-1 is retail seller of fertilizers under the whole sale dealership of Respondent No-2 and Respondent NO-2 is dealing with fertilizers are no way connected to Respondent No-3 Insurance Company with regard to service under Insurance Policy of deceased. So we are of the view that in the instant case we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-1 & 2 towards complainant even though he requested the complainant to furnish some documents vide his letter Ex.P-3. 20. Now coming to the case of Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company, admittedly the complainant herself not pleaded or stated in her affidavit-evidence that she filed petition before Respondent No-3 and it was not considered. The same was highlighted before us by the learned advocate of Respondent NO-3. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No.3. However the claim of complainant is genuine, her husbands death certificate by the competent authority is as per Ex.P-4. The affidavit-evidence of PW-2 Veeranna who is an eye witness to the accident is before us even though there are no police records available to the complainant. As per the principles of the said rulings the complainant need not file such police records as a mandatory to claim benefits under the said policy, as such we are of the view that it is proper to give directions to the complainant to file her claim petition with available records namely death certificate of Sharanayyaswamy, affidavit-evidence of eye witness PW-2, and affidavit-evidence of other eye witnesses if any to Respondent No-3 Insurance Company within one month from the date of this judgement and Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim of complainant within one month from the date of submission of claim petition with other records by the complainant without insisting of FIR, Panchanama, PM Report etc., This complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is not maintainable, we allowed this complaint in part against Respondent No-3 only by modifying the relief, as such we answered Point No-1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 21. In view of our findings on Point No-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint against Respondent No-3 is partly allowed. The complainant is directed to submit her claim petition with available records namely the death certificate, affidavit-evidence of eye witness PW-2 Veeranna & affidavit-evidences of other eye witnesses if any to the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy within one month from the date of this judgement and Respondent No-3 is hereby directed to settle the claim of complainant within one month from the date of submission of the above said records by the complainant without insisting her to produce FIR, PME Report, Inquest Panchanama and Spot Panchanama . The complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. All the Parties to this complainant are hereby directed to maintain their respective costs. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-07-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Siddamma against the Respondents 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- which is the insurance amount of her husband with interest, to award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental shock and agony with cost and other reliefs. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband by name Sharanayyaswamy purchased fertilizers from Respondent No-1 on 14-10-06. Respondent No-2 is the Wholesale Dealer of fertilizers in Raichur. Respondent No-3 is the Insurance Company. At the time of purchase of fertilizers by her husband from Respondent No-1. Respondent No-2 made him to insure accidental benefit insurance policy floated by Respondent No-3 Insurance Company. After obtaining the policy from Respondent No-2 of Respondent No-3 on 20-10-06 insured Sharanayyaswamy fell down from the running Bullock Cart and died due to severe injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter the complainant being the wife of deceased Sharanaswamy enquired the matter with Respondent No- 1 & 2 to settle the insurance amount. Respondent No-2 and Respondent No-3 Insurance Company not settled her claim in-spite of oral and written requests hence she filed this complaint against all the Respondents for to grant relief as prayed in this complaint. 3. Respondent No- 1 to 3 appeared in this case through their Advocate separately and filed their written version separately. The brief facts of the written version filed by the Respondent No-1 are that he received complaint from the complainant regarding death of her husband and claiming insurance amount he advised the complainant to approach the Respondent No-2 in that regard. He is only a retail seller of the Respondent No-2s product there was no negligence on his part. He suitably advised the complainant to take advise of Respondent No-2 for to settle the claim there was no negligence on his part accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint against him among other grounds. 4. The brief facts of the written version filed by the Respondent No-2 are that Respondent No-3 Insurance Company floated Personal Accident Benefit to the farmers. Accordingly he suggested the names of some farmers including the name of deceased Sharanayyaswamy. The policy cover to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- only, the said insurance policy is not linked in any way with his selling of products or purchase of them by the farmers. It is purely a welfare scheme introduced for the benefit of farmers. The complainant filed application before him for to claim the accidental benefit due to death of her husband there was no First Information Report, Post Mortem Report filed by her towards her claim. She was suitably advised to produce records for to send those records to Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company for to settle her claim. But the complainant not furnished those documents as requested by him accordingly no claim petition towards to Respondent No-3, there was no deficiency in service on his part as such he prayed for to dismiss the complaint against him. 5. Respondent No-3 Insurance Company filed its written version by contending that no claim has been made by the complainant directly or through Respondent No-2 to its Insurance Office to consider her claim. Deceased is the member of Group Insurance to the farmers through Respondent No-2, without receipt of claim petition along necessary records insurance company cannot settle the claim of complainant there was no deficiency in service on its part. It is a pre-mature complaint, as complainant not approached Insurance Company to settle her claim accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, at the life time of her husband Sharanayyaswamy he purchased fertilizer from Respondent No-1 who is the dealer of Respondent No-2 which covers the scheme of Group Insurance to the farmers launched by Respondent No-3 Insurance Company for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- and he died on 20-10-06 as he fell from the running Bullock Cart, thereafter she requested Respondent Nos- 1 & 2 in oral as well as in writing for to make payment of the amount under policy of her husband but all these Respondents shown their negligence in settling her claim and thereby all the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the negative against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and duty of Respondent No-3 as stated in the final order of this judgement. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 8. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence and additional affidavit-evidence of complaint are filed and she was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of eye-witness to the accident of Sharanayyaswamy is filed who is noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. 9. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Respondent No-1 was filed he was noted as RW-1, affidavit-evidence of the Deputy General Manager of the Respondent No-2 is filed who is noted as RW-2 and affidavit-evidence of C.S.C. of Respondent No-3 was filed he was noted as RW-3. Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 are marked. 10. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties their respective documentary evidences and arguments advanced on both sides, we are of the view that none of these Respondents have disputed the relationship of complainant with deceased Sharanayyaswamy as the complainant is the wife of him. 11. Death of Sharanayyaswamy as on 20-12-06 as per death certificate at Ex.P-4, holding of Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy by deceased at his life time floated by Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company through Respondent No-2 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide policy at Ex.R-1 are not in dispute even though the complainant is claiming that the sum assured in the policy for Rs. 30,000/-. It is further undisputed fact that deceased Sharanayyaswamy at his life time purchased fertilizers from Respondent No-1s shop who is the dealer of the products of Respondent No-2 on 14-10-06 vide Bill No. 1981. 12. Keeping in view of the above undisputed facts in between the parties, now we have to see as to whether the complainant has proved the death of her husband Sharanayyaswamy due to fall from the running Bullock Cart as contended in this complaint for to entitle the accidental benefit claim under the said insurance policy from the Respondent No-3. Document at Ex.P-3 a letter written by Respondent No-2 to the complainant shows that the complainant filed claim petition only before him without any records to substantiate that the said Sharanayyaswamy died in the accident he requested in his letter to produce FIR copy, Panchanama copy and other records to send her claim to Respondent No-3. 13. The learned advocate for Respondent No-3 contended before us that the Insurance Company has not at all received any claim petition either from the complainant directly or through Respondent No-2, as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company, this complaint is pre-mature complaint and thereby it is not maintainable against the Insurance Company. 14. In-view of the contentions and Rival contentions raised before us by the parties, first we have to decide as to whether the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy has to be proved by the complainant only by submitting FIR copy, PM Report and other police records for to claim benefit under the policy of her husband vide letter Ex.P-3 letter of Respondent No-2. 15. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that to prove the accidental death of her husband Sharanayyaswamy only by producing copy of FIR, PM Report and other police records. She can also prove the said accidental death of her husband by filing her own affidavit-evidence and the affidavit-evidence of PW-2 who is by name Veeranna as eye witness to the accident. In support of his submission, he relied on the ruling reported in 2000(1) CPR 32 Branch Manager LIC of India V/s. Rajkumar Mishra. 16. In this case their lordship of Uttar Pradesh State Commission held in similar case, as filing of FIR or PME Report are not necessary documents to consider the claim petition under such policy. We have also referred other three recent rulings which are as under:- (1) 2007(2) CPR 141 Smt. Zudiyabebi and Others V/s. General Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., and Another (2) 2008(4) CPR 332 NC case State of Himachal Pradesh through its Commissioner Cum General Manager V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited., and Others. (3) 2008(3) CPR 249 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., V/s. Pramila Balaji Achuwali and Others. 17. In the above said three rulings, their lordships of the National Commission as well as the State Commission of Uttar Pradesh held as while considering the accidental benefit under the policy claimaints need not produce FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report, Spot Panchanama etc., to prove accidental death of deceased. Further their lordships have observed that the repudiation of claims under such policy on the ground that FIR, PM Report and other police records not filed is not correct. 18. Keeping in view of the observations of the Honble National Commission as well as the Honble State Commission of Uttar Pradesh, now we have to see as to whether demand made by Respondent No-2 to the complainant for to produce copy of FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report, Spot Panchanama etc., vide his letter at Ex.P-3 is justified or not. We are of the view that, to prove the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy by his wife complainant, the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 her additional affidavit-evidence and affidavit-evidence of eye witness of PW-2 Veeranna are quite sufficient, there are no contrary circumstance out coming from the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 to RW-3 to reject the testimony of them Insurance policy is based on mutual trust between the parties, as such we are of the view that PW-1 & PW-2 are trustworthy witness to place reliance on them. Accordingly we have accepted the affidavit-evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 to come to the conclusion that the said Sharanayyaswamy died on 20-10-06 by falling from the running Bullock Cart and thereby the complainant being the legally wedded wife of deceased is entitled to claim the policy amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Non- production of FIR, PM Report, Inquest Report and Sport Panchanama is not a fatal to the case of complainant, as such we have rejected the contention of Respondent No-2. 19. As regards to the liability of making the payment under such policy amount, we have taken note of the entire case of Respondent No- 1, 2 and 3. Admittedly Respondent No-1 is retail seller of fertilizers under the whole sale dealership of Respondent No-2 and Respondent NO-2 is dealing with fertilizers are no way connected to Respondent No-3 Insurance Company with regard to service under Insurance Policy of deceased. So we are of the view that in the instant case we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-1 & 2 towards complainant even though he requested the complainant to furnish some documents vide his letter Ex.P-3. 20. Now coming to the case of Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company, admittedly the complainant herself not pleaded or stated in her affidavit-evidence that she filed petition before Respondent No-3 and it was not considered. The same was highlighted before us by the learned advocate of Respondent NO-3. In view of the said circumstances, we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No.3. However the claim of complainant is genuine, her husbands death certificate by the competent authority is as per Ex.P-4. The affidavit-evidence of PW-2 Veeranna who is an eye witness to the accident is before us even though there are no police records available to the complainant. As per the principles of the said rulings the complainant need not file such police records as a mandatory to claim benefits under the said policy, as such we are of the view that it is proper to give directions to the complainant to file her claim petition with available records namely death certificate of Sharanayyaswamy, affidavit-evidence of eye witness PW-2, and affidavit-evidence of other eye witnesses if any to Respondent No-3 Insurance Company within one month from the date of this judgement and Respondent NO-3 Insurance Company is directed to settle the claim of complainant within one month from the date of submission of claim petition with other records by the complainant without insisting of FIR, Panchanama, PM Report etc., This complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is not maintainable, we allowed this complaint in part against Respondent No-3 only by modifying the relief, as such we answered Point No-1 & 2 accordingly. POINT NO.3:- 21. In view of our findings on Point No-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint against Respondent No-3 is partly allowed. The complainant is directed to submit her claim petition with available records namely the death certificate, affidavit-evidence of eye witness PW-2 Veeranna & affidavit-evidences of other eye witnesses if any to the accidental death of Sharanayyaswamy within one month from the date of this judgement and Respondent No-3 is hereby directed to settle the claim of complainant within one month from the date of submission of the above said records by the complainant without insisting her to produce FIR, PME Report, Inquest Panchanama and Spot Panchanama . The complaint against Respondent No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. All the Parties to this complainant are hereby directed to maintain their respective costs. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-07-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.