Date of Filing : 17.01.2012
Date of Order : 17.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 17th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 03 / 2012
Smt. Lalithamma,
W/o. Late G. Nagesh,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at: Mittamalahalli Village,
Hunkunda Post, Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. M. Chandrashekar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Kolar Branch, No. 1092/2, New Extension,
Near Dome light Circle,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Party
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- are necessary:-
The husband of the Complainant has insured his Hero Honda vehicle KA-08/K-9585 with OP in Policy No. 35070131096200618500 covering risk of own damage and also personal accident benefit and it was valid between 31.07.2010 & 30.07.2011. On 15.05.2011, the said vehicle met with an accident and the husband of the Complainant G. Nagesh has succumbed to the injuries. Case was registered by jurisdictional police. Complainant approached OP in this regard who wanted RC to be changed in her name. Accordingly RC was changed to her name and the amount was claimed. The Complainant submitted all the documents required by the OP. Even then amount was not sent. Hence, notice was issued to the OP on 19.02.2011, but they did not settle the claim. Hence this Complaint.
2. In brief the version of OP are:-
Insurance of the vehicle by the husband of the Complainant, its validity, own damage and covering personal accident benefit are all admitted. The deceased died on 15.05.2011. On 03.06.2011, Advocate Chandrashekar wanted claim form pertaining to the above claim and the form was issued, but claim form was not submitted. OP requested the Complainant to furnish document i.e., succession certificate, that has not been furnished. Hence, the Complaint be dismissed.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, Complainant has filed her affidavit and OP has filed Memo stating that his version be read as its evidence. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that one Nagesh, husband of the Complainant was having a Policy with respect to his vehicle which also covers personal accident benefit and also own damages. It is also an admitted fact that the said Nagesh died in Motor vehicle accident on 15.05.2011. In this regard, claim has been made. OP wanted succession certificate that’s all. In this case admittedly the said Nagesh left his mother Chikkamuniyamma, W/o. Govindappa and Rajesh, aged about 10 years & Nandeesha, aged about 8 years, his children and Complainant as his Class-I heirs. These are admitted at the time of arguments by both the parties. That means, these 4 persons are entitled to the personal accident claim of insurance amount. The sum assured under the Policy is Rs.1,00,000/-. In this, all the four persons i.e., Complainant, her 2 children and her mother-in-law are entitled to equal share. This is the Law in AIR 2007 Page 352 and unreported judgement of Hon’ble High Court n CRP No. 889/99 dtd. 02.07.1999 between Srinivasa.P. & Managing Director, KSRTC. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the above point accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to pay 25% of the sum assured and the benefit under the Policy to the Complainant, 25% with benefits to Smt. Chikkamuniyamma, mother of the deceased and keep 25% with benefits each of the sum assured under the policy in Fixed Deposit in the name of Rajesh & Nandeesha, sons of the deceased and the Complainant in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank coextensive with their majority and the Complainant is entitled to draw quarterly periodical interest for the welfare of the minors.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. OP is directed to send the amount to the Complainant and to Chikkamuniyamma as stated supra by Demand Draft through RPAD as ordered and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
