Date of Filing: 12/12/2011

        Date of Order: 31/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  31^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

C.C. NO.2248 OF 2011

Smt. Nagamma,

M/o. Praveen Kumar M,

Aged About 47 years,

R/at:No.275/1, Near CMR School,

Kacharakanahalli, Bangalore-84.

(Rep. by Sri.Arun K.S, Advocate)                                         ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. Sri. Tarak,

HR Technical Recruiter,

C/o. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited, No.2-42/1-8,

GBR Towers, 3^rd Floor, Chaitnyapuri,

Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad-560060.

2. ICICI Lombard GIC Limited,

2^nd Floor, SVR Complex, 89,

Hosur Main Road, Madivala,

Koramangala, Bangalore-68.                                            …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,50,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant had insured her vehicle bearing registration No. KA-03-HE-3809 with the opposite parties on 15.04.2009.  The son of the complainant on 15.10.2010 while driving the vehicle met with an accident and unfortunately died in that accident.  The complainant made claim with the opposite parties who has repudiated alleging that the deceased was not running the vehicle at the time of accident.  Hence the complaint.

2.       The matter was posted for hear on 19.12.2011, 23.12.2011, 27.12.2011, 30.12.2011 and to today on payment of costs even none of these days neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared.  Hence perused the records.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is prima facie case to issue process to the opposite parties?
2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) :     In the Negative.

Point (B) :     As per the final Order

                    for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

5.       In this case how the 1^st opposite party is responsible for this claim is not at all stated.  The 1^st opposite party is not corporate office but is the technical recruiter of the 2^nd opposite party according to the complainant.  How can he be impleaded as a party.  There is no answer.

6.       2^nd opposite party is not being represented by any person.  2^nd opposite party is a limited company hence the either the Managing Director or the Company secretary or the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party or any other person should have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings representing the 2^nd opposite party.  In spite of giving several opportunities the complainant never bother to look in to the matter hence the complaint as such is not maintainable.  Hence under these circumstances there is no justification to issue process to the opposite parties hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is dismissed as non maintainable.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31^st Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT