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

DATED 11^st DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER:

1.This complaint is filed under section 35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking  following reliefs.

a) To direct the Opposite party to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/-  with damages and litigation costs.

2. The case of complainant in brief is as under.

The complainant is niece of Smt. Vijaya.K. had  married to  one late Venkatesh, during her lifetime her husband died on 26.01.2000. Later Smt.Vijaya.K. died on 18.01.2019 due to accidental fell, she got heart attack died on spot.  Further, Smt.Vijaya .K. was a agarbhathi maker and got enrolled to the programme called Pradhan Manthri Kaushal Vikasa Yojana and  received completion certification with Grade “A” by National Skill Development Corporation on 22.04.2019  confirming to National Skill qualification frame  work and Smt. Vijaya.K have personal accident insurance with the service provider OP. Smt.Vijaya.K. paid premium and continued the same for remaining the premium with insurance policy no.32010342180100000002, I.D. no.PO58474147, which was  valid for 03 years i.e. from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2021 and Smt.Vijaya.K. has no child. The Genealogical Tree of deceased Smt.Vijaya.K. reveals the same and the original death certificate and SSLC marks card are produced. The complainant is the successor to the estate of the deceased and entitled for claiming insurance under personal accident insurance policy and the ration card, bank pass book and Aadhar card are subsistence with the complainant is true Legal heir and further on 18.01.2019 Smt.K.Vijaya died in the accident where she accidentally fell down and got heart attack and died on spot. The said health policy was in force during the time of said accident. The complainant claimes insurance  amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of Smt.Vijaya.K is one of Legal heir of Vijaya.K. Further the complainant presented all documents to OP compensation claiming said amount, but the OP denied the same. Being aggrieved by the said act of the OP the complainant has filed this present complaint.

3. After issuance of notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed version and affidavit evidence  along with documents, which are marked as R1 to R6.

4. The Op appeared and filed version, in the version OP has taken contention that complainant is not a consumer and he has no locus standie to file the complaint.  The complainant is only niece of Smt.Vijaya.K, who is not a consumer or Legal heir of Late Vijaya.K. The OP contends that Vijaya.K. is not a member of the scheme of the personal  accident covered at the time of her death. As per the policy coverage the period of insurance is from 09.04.2019 to 08.04.2022 and she died on 18.01.2019 at the date of death she was not the member of the scheme.  The personal accident policy covers death due to accident only, but in the present complaint the cause of death of late Smt.Vijaya was due to Epilepsy attach, HTN and cardiac arrest and is not the accident or Trauma. Hence, complainant is not liable for any claim. Further, OP has taken contention that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties i.e. National Skill Development Corporation(in short NSDC). Further no post mortem report or FIR was lodge to prove the  accidental death. The beneficiaries of the complainant shall be decided by the National Skill Development Corporation  covered under the master policy. Further, Op contends that there was no coverage of personal accident policy to Smt.Vijaya.K on the date of her death and neither  FIR nor post mortem report is filed. Complainant is a stranger and not legal heir or consumer cannot make for legal claim and hence denying all the other allegations made in the complaint prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5. The Complainant did not choose to file affidavit evidence. Heard arguments of OP and advocate for OP files written arguments. Arguments of complainant is taken as nil.

6.  The following points arises for our consideration.

1. Whether complainant is a consumer under Consumer protection Act, 2019?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed  in the complainant?

3. What Order?

 7. Our answer to the above points are as under

Point No.1 & 2: Negative

        Point No.3:  Per final order.

                                REASONS

8. Point No.1 & 2: This is complaint filed by one Shekar, who claims as  niece of Smt.Vijaya.K., but the complainant has not produced any documents to  show that he is niece of Smt.Vijaya.K. He has produced  ration card of Vijaya.K., in which complainant’s name is mentioned, but relationship  has not been mentioned.  Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, speaks about succession in the case of female Hindus; (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband, (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

In the present case, the complainant does not come within the purview of  General Rules mentioned in Hindu Succession Act and more so, under the definition of Consumer,

“Consumer” means by any person who:-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment,  when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains  such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred  payment and includes any beneficiary of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of which the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 Shekar S. is never complainant and nor consumer/heir. The present complaint is not maintainable. Further, more Smt.Vijaya was member of the scheme personal accident coverage at the time of her death but post- mortem report or FIR are not produced in the present case to show that the complainant died due to accident or trauma. As such it shows that said Smt.Vijaya had not died due to personal accident and the policy coverage does not  extend to the complainant. When the complainant has failed to prove that he is  a consumer, then the deficiency of service does not arise. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1& 2 in negative.

9.Point No.3:- In the result, we pass the following order

ORDER

1. Complaint is dismissed, directing  both parties to bear their own costs.
2. Furnish the copy of the order to the both parties.
3. Return the spare pleadings and documents to parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 11^th day of April, 2022).

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Commission on this 11^th day of April, 2022).

(RENUKADEVI DESHAPANDE)    (H.JANARDHAN)    (K.S.BILAGI)

    MEMBER                         MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Documents produced by the Complainant which are as follows:-

Documents produced by the OP which are as follows:-