new india asurance V/S Sudharani - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2319

Sudharani - Complainant(s)

Versus

new india asurance - Opp.Party(s)

G.chandrakala

19 Dec 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2319

Sudharani						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
new india asurance						...........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

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 18th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2319/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Sudharani, W/o. Late B. Manjunatha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, R/at Vinayaka Nagar, Jigani Village and Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural. Advocate (Shilpa Bellad) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Lakshmi Complex, No. 40, Opp. Vanivilas Hospital, K.R. Road, Bangalore. Advocate (V. Subramani) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.2,00,000/- and pay same with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant husband B. Manjunatha Reddy is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-P-7516. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle with regard to personal accident risk, which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. On 07.04.2007 at about 11.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident, at that time the husband of the complainant was driving the said vehicle having valid and effective driving licence. In the said accident he sustained the severe injuries, ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Police complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No. 63/2007 was registered by the jurisdictional Police. The Lrs of Manjunath Reddy filed MVC case before the Tribunal, then approached the OP to settle the claim. Though complainant produced all the necessary documents for the consideration of the OP, OP failed to honour the said claim. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the husband of the complainant. In order to settle the said claim OP wanted the complainant to produce the valid and effective driving licence alleged to have been possessed by her husband for their consideration. But no such documents are produced. Even till today OP is ready to settle the said claim if complainant produce the documents as called for. So for so good OP has not repudiated the said claim, it is kept pending for want of better particulars. Under such circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor complainant accrued any cause of action to file this complaint. The relief claimed under the complaint is pre-mature. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants husband B. Manjunath Reddy is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-P-7516 and OP having covered the personal accident risk with respect to the said vehicle which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. According to the complainant on 07.04.2007 at about 11.30 p.m. while her husband driving the said vehicle one Lorry bearing No. KA-06-A-4527 came in a high speed and dashed against the car of her husband. Due to which her husband sustained the severe injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. Then she made a claim to the OP to settle the personal accident risk benefit in her favour. As the OP failed to heed to her demand she felt the deficiency in service. 7. The documents now produced by the OP clearly goes to show that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driving by the husband of the complainant and not by the lorry driver of a lorry bearing No. KA-06-A-4527. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be fair and honest. Complainant has already filed the MVC case before the Tribunal, when that is so, she can redress her grievance there. Now as per the policy conditions OP has got a right to seek for better particulars in order to settle the claim. On the perusal of the Standard Form For Liability Only Policy Clause shows that the Owner/Driver should hold an effective driving licence as per the provisions of M.V. Act and Rules at the time of accident. So in order to get satisfied before settling the said claim OP called upon the complainant to produce the driving licence. But so for so good it is not produced so also the original R.C. and other connected documents. 8. It is further contended by the OP that on humanitarian consideration they are ready to settle the said claim if complainant produces the required documents referred to above as per the policy terms and conditions. It is unfortunate that the complainant has not heeded to the demand made by the OP. As it is there is no proof that OP has repudiated the said claim. Even in the complaint also complainant has not pleaded when her claim was repudiated by the OP. 9. Having considered all these facts and circumstances when OP is ready to settle the claim in terms of the clause and conditions incorporated in the policy, what made the complainant to file this complaint is not known. When an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant to redress her grievance by producing the necessary documents as called upon by the OP. In our view the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. If the husband of the complainant did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, then naturally OP has got a right to repudiate the claim. The ball is in the court of the complainant. 10. When complainant become defaulter in not producing D.L., she cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The claim appears to be pre-mature. There is no real cause of action which has aroused to the complainant to file this complaint. With these observations we find the complainant does not deserves the relief now as claimed. Keeping open her rights to redress her grievance by producing the necessary documents as called upon by the OP with regard to the settlement of the claim, this complaint is disposed of accordingly answering point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. Keeping open the right of the complainant to produce all the necessary documents as called upon by the OP for consideration of the said claim. In case even after the production of all those documents OP repudiates her claim her right to file a fresh complaint is kept open. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 18th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2319/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Sudharani, W/o. Late B. Manjunatha Reddy, Aged about 25 years, R/at Vinayaka Nagar, Jigani Village and Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural. Advocate (Shilpa Bellad) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Lakshmi Complex, No. 40, Opp. Vanivilas Hospital, K.R. Road, Bangalore. Advocate (V. Subramani) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim for Rs.2,00,000/- and pay same with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant husband B. Manjunatha Reddy is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-P-7516. OP covered the insurance of the said vehicle with regard to personal accident risk, which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. On 07.04.2007 at about 11.30 p.m. the said vehicle met with an accident, at that time the husband of the complainant was driving the said vehicle having valid and effective driving licence. In the said accident he sustained the severe injuries, ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Police complaint was lodged and a case in Crime No. 63/2007 was registered by the jurisdictional Police. The Lrs of Manjunath Reddy filed MVC case before the Tribunal, then approached the OP to settle the claim. Though complainant produced all the necessary documents for the consideration of the OP, OP failed to honour the said claim. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has suppressed certain material facts. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the husband of the complainant. In order to settle the said claim OP wanted the complainant to produce the valid and effective driving licence alleged to have been possessed by her husband for their consideration. But no such documents are produced. Even till today OP is ready to settle the said claim if complainant produce the documents as called for. So for so good OP has not repudiated the said claim, it is kept pending for want of better particulars. Under such circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor complainant accrued any cause of action to file this complaint. The relief claimed under the complaint is pre-mature. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainants husband B. Manjunath Reddy is the R.C. Owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-P-7516 and OP having covered the personal accident risk with respect to the said vehicle which was valid from 30.03.2007 to 29.03.2008. According to the complainant on 07.04.2007 at about 11.30 p.m. while her husband driving the said vehicle one Lorry bearing No. KA-06-A-4527 came in a high speed and dashed against the car of her husband. Due to which her husband sustained the severe injuries and later on succumbed to the injuries. Then she made a claim to the OP to settle the personal accident risk benefit in her favour. As the OP failed to heed to her demand she felt the deficiency in service. 7. The documents now produced by the OP clearly goes to show that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driving by the husband of the complainant and not by the lorry driver of a lorry bearing No. KA-06-A-4527. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge. The approach of the complainant does not appears to be fair and honest. Complainant has already filed the MVC case before the Tribunal, when that is so, she can redress her grievance there. Now as per the policy conditions OP has got a right to seek for better particulars in order to settle the claim. On the perusal of the Standard Form For Liability Only Policy Clause shows that the Owner/Driver should hold an effective driving licence as per the provisions of M.V. Act and Rules at the time of accident. So in order to get satisfied before settling the said claim OP called upon the complainant to produce the driving licence. But so for so good it is not produced so also the original R.C. and other connected documents. 8. It is further contended by the OP that on humanitarian consideration they are ready to settle the said claim if complainant produces the required documents referred to above as per the policy terms and conditions. It is unfortunate that the complainant has not heeded to the demand made by the OP. As it is there is no proof that OP has repudiated the said claim. Even in the complaint also complainant has not pleaded when her claim was repudiated by the OP. 9. Having considered all these facts and circumstances when OP is ready to settle the claim in terms of the clause and conditions incorporated in the policy, what made the complainant to file this complaint is not known. When an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant to redress her grievance by producing the necessary documents as called upon by the OP. In our view the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. If the husband of the complainant did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, then naturally OP has got a right to repudiate the claim. The ball is in the court of the complainant. 10. When complainant become defaulter in not producing D.L., she cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The claim appears to be pre-mature. There is no real cause of action which has aroused to the complainant to file this complaint. With these observations we find the complainant does not deserves the relief now as claimed. Keeping open her rights to redress her grievance by producing the necessary documents as called upon by the OP with regard to the settlement of the claim, this complaint is disposed of accordingly answering point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. Keeping open the right of the complainant to produce all the necessary documents as called upon by the OP for consideration of the said claim. In case even after the production of all those documents OP repudiates her claim her right to file a fresh complaint is kept open. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.