Karnataka

Kolar

CC/118/2023

Smt.Kanthamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/08/2023

Date of Order: 19/12/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated:19^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:118/2023

Smt. Kanthamma,

W/o Late. G. Chalapathi,

Aged about 48 years,

Permanently Resident of Gandarajapalli Village,

Gangavaram Mandal,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.

 

Presently Residing at,

Nanjundeshwara Halo Blocks

Brick Factory,

Bethamangala Road,

Near NH-7 Road,

Tamaka,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. P. N. Srinath, Advocate)                ….  Complainant.

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

No.3/5, 3^rd Floor SV. Arcade,

Belekahalli Village Main Road,

Opp: to Bannerughatta Road,

IIM-B Post,

Bengaluru-76.

 (Rep. by Sri. J. Simon, Advocate)                     ….Opposite Party.                                                                        

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT.SAVITHA AIRANI, LADY MEMBER.,

1. That the complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the OP alleging deficiency in service and prays to direct the OP to pay the personal accident claim of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant and along with interest from the date of the advance amount paid and also grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deems fit to grant to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is the mother of Lakshmipathi. G,  and stated that  on  07/04/2022    at about 8.15 P.M. her son met with an unfortunate road traffic accident on the Bengaluru-Chennai road near Alla Kuppam village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.  Further it is stated that,  in the said accident her son  Lakshmipathi sustained head injuries and was initially taken to Government Area Hospital, Palamaner, and later on transferred to CMC Hospital, Vellore. Unfortunately, the son of the complainant succumbs to injuries and the doctors also   declared him dead.  It is stated that subsequent to post-mortem examination at Palamaner Hospital, the complainant received her son's body and performed the cremation.

 

3. The complainant further stated that, the son of complainant was insured his vehicle with the OP Insurance Company.  The policy of the said vehicle was in force from 16/10/2021 to 15/10/2022 bearing policy No.417053/31/22/003404.  He had valid driving license at the time of accident.  The insurance policy included a personal accident claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, covering the period from  16/10/ 2021  to  15/10/ 2022.

 

4. The complainant further stated that, after death of her son, she had approached the OP insurance company for settlement of the said policy.  But OP insurance company did not settle the claim amount to her.  Thereafter complainant issued legal notice to the OP on 28/06/2023 and the same was served on the OP.  But OP has failed to settle the claim of the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

 

 

5. On issuance of notice OP appeared through their counsel and filed its version.

 

6.  In the version OP contended that, the complaint is not maintainable, asserting that it is time-barred and falls outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Commission. The complainant, residing in Gandarajapalli, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, and  an accident occured in Alla Kuppam Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District. The insurance policy for the two-wheeler, registered as AP-39-JL-0615, was taken in Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh.  Further OP contends that, the complaint should have been filed with the District Consumer Commission in Chittoor District, hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

7. Further the OP Insurance Company contends that, the policy covering the vehicle from 16/10/2021, to          15/10/ 2022, did not include personal accident coverage. The insured, Sri. G. Lakshmipathi, had not paid any premiums for such coverage Personal Accident Claim (owner/driver).  Further Op insurance company contented that, the accident resulted from the rider's failure that he was not wear a headgear (helmet), and violated the Rule 23 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, if he was wear helmet he would have saved from accident but he was died due to head injury as per PM report, contends that this negligence contributed to the finality.

 

8. Further contended that, the OP in response to the complainant's allegations, that they are false and aimed at obtaining undue benefits from the claim. Further contended that, the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On the above said grounds Op insurance company pray to dismiss the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  Further the Op insurance company also filed the affidavit evidence with documents.

 

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Whether this commission has got territorial     jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?            
2. Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

Our findings on the above points are:-

POINT No.(1):-           In the Negative.

POINT No.(2) & (3):-   In the Negative.

POINT No.(4):-           As per the final order

                                   for the following.

 

                                    REASONS

11. POINT No. (1):  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that one Sri. Lakshmipathi. G was insured his vehicle with the opposite parties and the policy bearing No: 417053/31/22/003404.  Further the validity of the policy commencing from 16/10/2021 to 15/10/2022.  It also not in dispute that on 07/04/2022 that the insured was met with an accident Chennai - Bangalore Highway near Alla Kuppam Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittor District AP.  Further the OP resides at Bangalore as per the address furnished in the cause title of the complaint.  In order to decide the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission we have resolve to the section 34 of the Act it reads thus:
    1. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed  50 Lakhs rupees:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,
   1. The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
   2. Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
   3. The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
   4. The complainant resides or personally works for gain.
3. The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the District headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the District, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the official Gazette from time to time.

 

12.    In the light of above provision of law on analyzing the address of the petitioner/complainant given in the cause title it is given to our understand that the complainant permanently residing at Gandarajapalli Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.  Whereas the complainant as given another address presently residing at Nanjundeshwara halo Blocks Brick Factory, Bethamangala Road, Near NH-7 Road, Tamaka, Kolar.  Whereas, on perusing the section 34 of the Act the complaint is maintainable where she is resides or personally works for gain, however on careful reading of the entire complaint that the complainant did not whisper anything that she works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Commission or she has not filed any supporting document to show that complainant is residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Admittedly the accident occur within the area of Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and the OP resides at Bangalore so that on perusal of the evidence placed on record we reach to conclusion that, complainant failed to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the section 34 of the Act in order to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the complaint.  On foregoing reasons the complainant is hit by territorial jurisdiction to entitle the complaint.  Accordingly we answer the point No. (1) In the Negative.

 

13. POINT No. (2) & (3):  These two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for brevity, these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

14. It is the undisputed fact that, the complainant is the mother of Lakshmipathi. G who was died in road accident and also during his life time he had obtained vehicle insurance policy.  Policy bearing No: 417053/31/22/003404 commenced on 16/10/2021 and expired on 15/10/2022.

 

15. Now the allegation of the complainant is that, after the death of her son, she approached the Op insurance company for claim settlement of the above policy, but the Op insurance company failed to respond properly to complainant and also failed to settle the claim of the complainant even to this day.

 

16. Now the crux of the matter is to consider that, whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim amount?

 

17.  On perusal of the Insurance policy placed on record as an evidence it reveals that, the insured was not paid any premium amount towards coverage of the personal accident and the same is reflected in the policy “P.A Cover U/s III for owner/driver(CSI): Rs.0”.  Hence complainant claim is obviously not covered by the insurance policy.  Hence the contention of the OP for repudiation of the claim is justifiable and thereon, there is no deficiency in service committed by the OP.  Accordingly complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company and therefore complainant is entitled for the any relief sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the point No.(2) & (3) are in the negative.

 

18. POINT NO. (4):-   On the basis of answering the Point No. (1) to (3) and the reasons assigned thereon, we proceed to pass the following.

                                       ORDER

1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both the parties at free of cost.

   (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 19^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2023)

 

 

 

 

                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT