BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HYDERABAD
F.A. 439/2008 against C.C. 720/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
Rep. by its Regional Manager
3rd Floor, Moghul Courts Building
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad *** Appellant/
O.P. No. 1
And
1. Smt. T. Chandrakala
w/o. Late T. Kishan
Age: 31 years, Housewife
R/o. Chintapally (V) & (M)
Nalgonda Dist. *** Respondent/
Complainant
2. Golden Trust Financial Services Ltd.
Sar East Plaza, 4th Floor
Opp. TATA Motors
Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 2
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Thata Singaiah Goud
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. N. Harinatha Reddy –R1
R2- None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TEN
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 5 lakhs covered under the policy together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband Late T. Kishan had taken insurance Policy through Golden Trust Financial Service for Rs. 5 lakhs covering the period from 15.4. 2004 to 104.2014. In fact the insurance company had tied up with Golden Trust Financial Services to promote business and the members of the club are entitled to accident benefit. While so, her husband died in a road accident on 25.6.2004. Basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 46/2004 against the offending driver. Though claim was made followed by several representations they did not settle the claim and therefore she sought for Rs. 5 lakhs covered under the policy together with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs.
3) The appellant insurance company resisted the case. It alleged that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction as its head office situated at Calcutta. At any rate, the complaint was barred by limitation since the accident took place on 25.6.2004 and the complaint was filed on 8.10.2007 i.e., after three years four months. The complainant ought to have filed a case against the owner of the vehicle which dashed against the deceased. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) Op2 filed counter. However, it admitted that the complainant’s husband was a member and was insured for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs issued by the insurance company. The insurance company had kept the matter pending without settling the claim. It has no role to settle the claim. There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A15 marked, while the appellant filed the affidavit evidence of its Asst. Manager and did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that documentary evidence prove beyond doubt that the assured died in a road accident and in fact the complainant being the wife and nominee under the policy entitled to the compensation. It has jurisdiction and the claim was not barred by limitation. Therefore it directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 5 lakhs covered under the policy together with compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction as its office is situated at Calcutta. Apart from it, the complaint is barred by limitation.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that by virtue of membership in R2 financial services complainant’s husband Teratipally Kishan was given a Group Janata Personal Accident policy Ex. A2 covering the period from 15.4.2004 to 14.4.2014 for Rs. 5 lakhs. Though head-office is situated at Calcutta the very appellant is having regional office at Hyderabad evident from the cause title mentioned in the appeal. The insurance policy was also given at Hyderabad. The amounts were collected at Hyderabad. Therefore the Dist. Forum has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 11(2)(a) of the C.P. Act.
10) Admittedly the assured died in a road accident on 25.6.2004 basing on which the police registered a case in crime No.46/2004 vide Ex. A3, inquest was conducted evidenced under Ex. A4 followed by post-mortem examination Ex. A5 and charge sheet was filed against offending driver of the vehicle vide Ex. A6. The complainant has submitted claim to the appellant insurance company enclosing the documents under Ex. A7. In fact the very insurance company having received the claim sought the complainant to file death certificate, post-mortem examination report and original policy for which she gave reply under Ex. A10. She also gave a reminder under Ex. A11 to settle her claim. Later the appellant addressed a letter to its regional office under Ex. A12 to settle the claim. It is not known as to why it did not settle the claim. A belated plea was taken that these documents were not submitted and therefore it could not process the claim. In the light of voluminous documentary evidence referred to above, it cannot be said that the complainant did not furnish the requisite documents. There could not be any reason as to why she did not furnish the documents when she could file the same before the Dist. Forum.
11) Since the appellant did not settle her claim as she had no other go, she filed the complaint before the Dist. Forum for realization of the amount covered under the policy. When the opposite parties did not settle the claim the complainant filed the complaint. The question of reckoning cause of action form the date of accident will not arise. When the insurance company having received the claim did neither repudiate the claim nor settle the claim, the question of limitation will not arise in this case. A perusal of the order of the Dist. Forum would undoubtedly show that the complainant would be entitled to claim the amount she being the nominee under the policy, more so when her husband died in a road accident. The Dist. Forum while directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 5 lakhs covered under the policy awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh though the complainant has claimed Rs. 25,000/- This undoubtedly is irregular. Therefore the order of the Dist. Forum is modified in this regard directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation and the rest of the order is confirmed.
12) In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the Dist. Forum to Rs. 25,000/- while confirming the rest of the order. The complainant is also entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/- in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 25. 08. 2010.
*pnr
