IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 31st  day of August, 2017

Filed on 05. 05.2016

Present

1.  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2.  Sri.  Antony Xavier (Member)

3.  Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in 

C.C.No.161/2016

between

 

Complainant:-      Opposite Parties:-

 

Smt. Anju   1. Secretary 

W/o Sreejithmon M/s Kanichukulangara

Kunnuveliyil Veedu             Devaswam Devi Temple

Chembu.P.O Kanichukulangara.P.O

Chempu Panchayath C herthala, Alappuzha

Kottayam

2. The Branch Manager

United India Insurance

Company Ltd

NSS Union Building

Old NH-47 Road

  Cherthala Alappuzha

 

O R D E R

SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is as follows:-

On 28/2/2016 complainant and her husband reached Kanichukulangara Devi Temple for doing “Puzhukku vazhipadu” in connection with the temple festival.  While she was doing  the puzhukku vazhipadu in front of the temple,  top roof of the pandal which was fixed on a tree fell down on her and caused serious injury to her.   She was admitted in the hospital and discharged only on 14/3/2016 and now also she is continuing the treatment.  The 1st opposite party had taken a public liability non – industrial risk policy from the second opposite party indemnifying the claims arisen out of accident.  Accordingly the complainant preferred the claim before the 1st opposite party, but due to the non co-operation of 2nd opposite party the claim was not settled.  Hence the complaint is filed. 

2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-

There was an accident on 28/2/2016 at Kanichukulangara Devaswam Temple.  As per the policy taken the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay insured amount to the complainant.

3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-

The 2nd opposite party had issued a public liability non industrial policy under the name of the  Secretary Kanichukulangara Devaswam Temple for the period from 16/2/2016 to 15/3/2016,  arising out of  use of elephants, fireworks, anndhanam, pandal and Gopuram is also covered along with standard cover for sum insured Rs. 40,00,000/- limited to Rs. 100000/- per person”.  The complainant sustained injury not by the fall of pandal, but by the fall of branch of tree which situated beyond the temple compound.  Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief against the  2nd opposite party.

3.  Complainant was examined as PW1, documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5,  Two witnesses were examined as PW2 and Pw3.  The 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1.   Documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2.  

4. According to the complainant, while she was doing pongal  vazhipadu at Kanichukulangara Devaswam Temple in connection with the temple festival, a pandal which fixed on a tree fell down on her and caused serious injury.  1st opposite party filed version admitting the allegations in the complainant but, according to the 2nd opposite party as per the policy, public liability insurance in connection with the temple festival from 16/2/2016 to 15/3/2016   arising out of use of Elephants, fireworks, Annadhanam, Pandal and Gopuram is  also covered and the injury of the complainant was caused not by the pandal  but by the branch of  the tree under which the complainant was doing ‘Puzhukku Vazhipadu’.  The 2nd opposite party denied the claim of the complainant relying the statement in G.D. Entry.  G.D.Entry is produced by both parties.  In the G.D Entry  it is stated that ‘IWn-¨p-Ip-f-§c tZho-t£-{X-¯n ]pgp¡v hgn-]m-Sn-\mbn 28/02/2016 XobXn sshIn«v 3.00 aWn¡v t£{X-¯n\v ap³hiw IWn-¨p-Ip-f-§c tImþ-Hm-¸-td-äohv skmssk-än¡v kao]w ]pgp-§p-I-bm-bn-cp¶ Snbmsâ `mcy –ARvPp (36) apXq-I¯v kao]w \n¶n-cp¶ XWÂac-¯nsâ inJncw HSnªv Sn ARvPp-hnsâ aqXq-In hoW-Xn h¨v SnbmÄ¡v ]cn¡p ]än.’ so it is clear that  the incident occurred  in front of the temple where the complainant was doing  ‘Puzhukku Vazhipadu’.  According to the complainant pandal fixed on a branch of tree fell on her.  But according to the opposite party there was no such Pandal  and accident occurred since the branch of the tree fell on her.  The complainant,  her husband and Secretary of Temple were examined as PW1, PW2 and PW3.  While examing PW2  he categorically stated before the Forum that ‘Dress work  sNbvXXv Xmsg `à-P-\-§-fpsS tZl¯v hoWp. Ipd¨ t]À¡v ]cn-t¡-än-cp-¶p. Hcm-fpsS ]cn¡v kocn-bkv Bbn-cp-¶p. hmZn¡v kmc-amb ]cn¡v ]än-b-Xmbn Adnbmw’. He also stated that he was present in the incident spot.   In order to contradict this evidence no evidence adduced from the side of opposite party.   The 2nd opposite party has not produced investigation report also.  The 2nd opposite party who was examined as RW1 stated that the accident place was not within the compound of Temple, but at the same time she stated that she did not went to see the place of occurrence.  The 1st opposite party filed version admitting the allegation of the complainant. In the G.D Entry also it is stated that the place of occurance was infront of the temple and injury caused to a devotee who was doing ‘puzhukku vazhipad’.  It is pertinent to see that the insured 1st opposite party who was examined as a witness stated before the Forum that there was a pandal  and the complainant was doing puzhukku vazhipad under the pandal and it fell  on the complainant.  Apart from that the policy was taken by 1st opposite party and was indemnified by the 2nd opposite party for the claim arising  out of accident during the  period of insurance.  Hence we are of opinion that since there is a public liability non industrial policy in between the 1st and 2nd opposite party they are bound to compensate the complainant. As per the policy  the sum insured is Rs. 1 lakh per person and complaint is entitled to get that amount.  The PW2  stated before the Forum that he informed  the incident to the 2nd opposite party, but they did not entertain the claim.  The denial on the part of the 2nd opposite party in accepting claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result the complaint is allowed. 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant.  The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  Since the primary relief is allowed no further relief  allowed as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. Failing which the amount will carry 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization.  

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st  day of August, 2017.

 Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :

              Sd/- Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)      :                           Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            :

Appendix:-

      Evidence of the complainant:-

 

PW1 - Anju (Witness)

PW2 - Radhakrishnan (witness)

PW3 - Sreejithmon(Witness)

 

Ext.A1 - policy Certificate

Ext.A2 - Discharge summary

Ext.A3 - MRI cervical Spine Screening

Ext.A4 - Inpatient bill

Ext.A5 - Advance Bill

 

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  

 

RW1 - Bindu.B  (Witness)

Ext.B1 - United India Insurance  Policy book.

Ext.B2 - Copy of Report.

 

// True Copy //                                

By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-