Karnataka

StateCommission

A/323/2020

The Karnataka Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Premalatha - Opp.Party(s)

Prashanth.T.Pandit

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE.
 
First Appeal No. A/323/2020
( Date of Filing : 11 Mar 2020 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 19/12/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/62/2018 of District Udupi)
 
1. The Karnataka Bank
Branch Shirlal, Sri Bramhalingeshwara Kripa, Hadiangady post, Shirlal, Karkala tq., PIN-574101 Rep. by its Branch Manager
Karnataka
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Premalatha
Aged about 53 years, W/o Late Chandrasehkar Rao, Mathura Shri Nilaya, Main road, Wantegar, Kervashe Grama, Bajagoli, Karkala Tq., Udupi dist PIN-574112
Karnataka
2. Reshma C.Rao
Aged about 22 years, D/o Late Chandrashekar Rao, Mathura Shri Nailaya Main road, Wantegar, Kervashe Grama, Bajagoli, Karkala Tq., Udupi Dist. PIN-57412
Karnataka
3. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
City Trade Centre, 1st floor, Opp. City Hospital, Kadri, Mangalore-575003
Karnataka
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 17 Feb 2022
Final Order / Judgement

A323/2020

 

1.      This is an Appeal filed u/s 15 of C.P Act, 1986, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi in CC-62/2018 on 19.12.2019.

2.      Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, appellant herein arrayed as O.P.No.1 before the Forum below is only a formal party.  In this regard, he invited the attention of the Commission as to the finding recorded by the Commission below at Page-14(g), wherein recorded, much more than that O.P.No.2 contention, particularly taken as inconsistent view in the case, because no such policy conditions to show what they exclude-5(e) is not at all produced by them.  In this regard, we are of the view learned counsel for appellant is right in contending that, these terms and conditions of the policy are in no way concerned to O.P.No.1-Bank, merely because, the husband of complainant No.1 is the account holder of the said Bank.  Facts remain that; premium was paid by late Chandrashekhar Rao to the O.P.No.2/insured.  In such circumstances, directing even O.P.No.1 viz., appellant herein to pay sum assured amount has to be held incorrect.  In other words, finding to that affect recorded by the Commission below is not only contrary to facts, but law, is liable to be set aside.

3.     Accordingly, Commission proceed to allow the  appeal in part  and in substitution of the impugned order, we direct O.P.No.2 the insured do pay Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a from 29.07.2017 till realization and do pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of. 

4.      Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Commission below to refund in favour of O.P.No.1-Bank.

5.      Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.

 

 

        Lady Member                            Judicial Member

*J*   

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M]
MEMBER
 

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.