Orissa

Rayagada

CC/59/2017

Smt. Gembali Seetaratnam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Jan 2019

ORDER

CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 59 / 2017.                               Date.      22 .    01   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

 

Smt. Gambali Seetaratnam, Late Gambali Gouri Sankar Rao , House wife, AT/Po:Munikhal, Via:Muniguada,   Dist: Rayagada , 765 020  (Odisha).

                                                                                                            …. Complainant.

Versus.

The  Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8, EPIP RICO Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jajpur, Rajstan, Pin No. 302 022, India.             … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan,  Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

 

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non payment of  accident claim of 3 wheeler(Auto) towards policy No. 10003/31/15/293908  to the legal heir i.e. mother of deceased to the complainant for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

That  the complainant is the mother of the deceased  “Gembali Madhusudana Rao” who was the owner cum driver of the Auto (Passenger Auto) bearing Regd. No. OR-18-A-5216 died on Dt.14.2.2015 at about  3 P.M. along  with  the passengers  Ramjivan Ray and another passenger in a Road accident. While the deceased was driving  the said Auto coming from  Muniguda to Rayagada on the way at Jingilibadi  village  near  SH-4  the Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-07Y-9681 driven by its driver rashly and negligently coming  opposite direction resulting instaneous death of all  the passengers including  the deceased driver Gambali  Madhusudan Rao.  The Chandili Police Station  registered the case vide G.R. No. 79/2015 on the file of the S.D.J.M., Rayagada. The O.P. granted  the insurance policy for the Auto bearing  No. OR-18-A-5216 having been insured by the deceased owner-driver vide policy No. 10003/31/15/293908   which was valid from Dt. 6.9.2014 to 5.9.2015.  The complainant   is depending on the earnings of the  deceased. The complainant prays the forum direct  the O.P to grant compensation  under the policy according to law and such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of  justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.  Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.P   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record we observed  it is not disputed  that the deceased  Sri G.Madhusudan Rao had  package  policy  bearing  No. 10003/31/15/293908  valid  for the period from  6.9.2014 to 5.9.2015 mid night. Again it is not disputed that deceased G.Madhusudan Rao was the Registered owner of the Auto bearing  Regd  No. OR-07Y-9681.   Further  it is not disputed the policy covers the risk for the owner –cum-driver up to Rs.2,00,000/- PACKAGE POLICY.

The O.P in their written version contended that  the complaint petition is barred by  limitation and also is clear violation of limitation Act loss date was 14.2.2015 and the above complaint was filed on Dt. 8.5.2017 more than i.e. 2 years.

  In the present case in hand the O.Ps have not repudiated the above claim till date.   Hence there is  a continuing cause of action.  So the plea taken by the O.Ps regarding  barred of limitation  is rejected.  In the  catena  of judgements the Apex   court  where  in   observed  unless and until  repudiated the  insurance claim  by the insurance company  there  is  a    continuing cause of action.

The O.P in their written version further  contended that  the complainant had never intimated to the  O.P. regarding the accident and loss and also not submitted the relevant documents  for examination and verification by the company and the present complaint petition  is premature one and is not  maintainable.  The allegations  made by the complainant  are not to the knowledge of the O.P. till the  copy of the complaint petition served through the forum. The complainant  is  required to prove the same.

At  this stage this forum observed   the interest of justice  would met if  the O.P. received  all the documents relating to the case from   the complainant  and be settled the matter and to pay the insured amount to the complainant. .

The O.Ps in their written version  contended that the case is not maintainable before the forum. Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider whether the complaint petition  is maintainable   under C.P. Act ?  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation. It is held and reported in  CPC- 1991, page -540 the  Hon’ble  Hariyana State  Commission held that when ever there is any delay or dilatoriness in finalizing  the insurance claim, the same would be tentamount to a  deficiency  in service and thus comes squarely within the  purview of Consumer Forum.  Once it is held that default or negligence in the  settlement of an insurance claim is a deficiency  in service then an arbitrary  or mischievous  rejection  of an insurance claim  would patently  be a default  within its larger  meaning. On principle , it would   seem  some what manifest that the mere repudiation of the insurance claim cannot itself operate  as a  jurisdiction bar for redressel forums under the Act.  This is further  made it clear  it is held and reported  in CPR-1991(2), page No.18  where in  the Hon’ble National Commission  clearly defines  the mere unilateral  rejection of an insured parties  claimed by the insurer does not  per  se  operate as jurisdictional bar to seek redressal before  the forums under the Act. Accordingly  answered  the issue.   The complaint  petition  is  maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations  which is Aliance Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                       ORDER.

            In  resultant    the complaint petition stands allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.Ps. 

The O.Ps  ordered  to receive all the documents  pertaining to  this case from the complainant and settled the matter at their level.    

The complainant is directed to cooperate   and furnish  all the required documents available with her as wanted    by  the O..Ps  for early  settlement  of her claim as the O.Ps are not repudiated the claim and ready to settle the claim  in favour of the complainant..                              

 Parties are left to bear their own cost.

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this         22nd.   Day of     January  ,   2019.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President