IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 382/09 DATED 16.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Devamma W/o Late Muddappa, Muddahalli Village, Kalale Post, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. CAO (T.R) Nodle Officer, ()/() G.M. (Telecom), Mysore T.D. Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore-12.<br /> 2. Cholamandalum M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd., Plot No.6, Near Metro Railway Pillar, No.81, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110005.<br /> ( By Sri. V.A.R, for O.P.1, Sri. K.L.S for O.P.2.)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 15.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 16.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 12 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay personal accident policy amount of Rs.50,000/-, with interest and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, husband of the complainant Muddappa was consumer of first opposite party. He had landline telephone No.03221-238117. The first opposite party declared insurance scheme for death of the consumer on account of accident amounted to Rs.50,000/-. Husband of the complainant died on 30.05.2009 who met with an accident. A crime at 160/2009 has been registered at Nanjangud Rural Police. The complainant submitted claim to the opposite parties along with the relevant documents on 08.07.2009. There was no response from the opposite parties. Again on 22.09.2009 reminder was sent, but there is no response. Hence, it appears, the concerned officers are cheating the complainant. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Thought the first opposite party has admitted certain facts alleged in the complaint, has contended that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the complainant is not the consumer. It is contended that, the complainant is pre-mature. Further, it is contended that, the complainant has not responded to the requirements of the second opposite party. It is stated that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party also contended that, the complainant is pre-mature and not maintainable as the claim is under process. Also, it is stated that, there is non compliance of required details to finalize the claim. The liability of the opposite party is in terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the opposite party being based at New Delhi, cannot expected to read and understand the documents, which are in kannada and hence, translated version was sought from the complainant and for non compliance of the same, this opposite party cannot found fault. It is stated that, this opposite party has written to the complainant and the reminder sent returned for want of correct address. It is submitted that, even now this opposite party is ready to settle the policy amount provided required documents are produced. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the claim made in the complaint, son of the complainant who is authorized by the complainant, has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the both the opposite parties concerned officers have filed their affidavits and some documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point no. 1:- The fact that, husband of the complainant was covered by the personal accident insurance scheme sponsored by the first opposite party with the second opposite party is admitted. So also that, he died in the motor accident is admitted.<br /> 9. Even thought the first opposite party has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable alleging that, the complainant is not a consumer, in fact, the deceased, husband of the complainant was consumer of the first opposite party, who had land line telephone and was covered under the personal accident insurance scheme. Hence, the complainant being one of the legal heirs of the deceased is entitled to maintain the present complaint. Here, itself we would like to note that, it is not the contention of either of the opposite parties that, the complaint filed by the complainant alone in the absence of other heirs is not maintainable. More over, the complainant wife of the deceased has given authorization to his son to represent her in the present proceedings. Hence, the contention of the first opposite party that, complaint is not maintainable, is without substance.<br /> <br /> 10. It is further contended by the first opposite party that, there is no deficiency in service on its part. As could be seen from the version of the first opposite party, the claim of the complainant dated 08.07.2009 was forwarded to the second opposite party on 23.07.2009. Just for forwarding the claim petition, the first opposite party took nearly 14 days. As per the scheme, in fact, the policy amount has to be paid within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the valid claim. Hence, for the said reason amongst other facts and circumstances, the contention that, there is no deficiency on the part of the first opposite party, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 11. So for concerned to second opposite party, the main contention is that, the documents submitted by the complainant were in kannada and the second opposite party is being based at New Delhi, cannot be expected read and understand the documents in kannada language and in this regard, the complainant was called upon to furnish necessary translated documents and hence fault is on the part of the complainant. It is true, from the documents produced it is seen, initially deficiency letter was written to the complainant stating that, the documents marked in the letter were required and one more letter was written and in the last letter, in the remarks column translated bill is not received. As noted above the main contention of the second opposite party is that, translated documents were not furnished. The second opposite party has produced Xerox copy of letter addressed to the complainant returned undelivered with postal endorsement as insufficient address. Both the opposite parties contended that, in spite of the letter and the reminders, the complainant did not comply the requirements and hence, fault is with the complainant. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, the RPAD cover which was sent the complainant as noted above returned undelivered with postal endorsement insufficient address. From the said Xerox copy of the RPAD cover it is found name of the complainant is mentioned and then the village or post office and Taluk and district as well as state. After the name of the complainant, name of her husband or sir name is not mentioned. The claim petition copy that the complainant had forwarded to the opposite parties is on record and in the 14th column at (d) details of the nominee and name and address is mentioned as Devamma w/o late Muddappa……. . Hence, in the claim form, in fact, there is mention of name of husband of the complainant but on the RPAD cover name of husband of the complainant is not written. It is relevant to note that on the postal cover, further, there is mentioned by the postal authority that 4-5 persons of that name are in the village. Hence, if after the name of the complainant her husband name was written, then definitely postal authority could have delivered the said letter to the complainant. In spite of the fact that in the claim forum after the name of the complainant name of her husband having been written, that has not been written by the second opposite party on the RPAD cover. Hence, because of the fault of second opposite party in not furnishing the full address, the letter was not delivered to the complainant. Hence, the contention of the opposite parties that, despite the letter the complainant did not furnish the documents and fault is on the part of the complainant, is without substance. In fact, fault is with the second opposite party as noted above.<br /> <br /> 12. If the deficiency letter or reminder was delivered to the complainant then, in the normal course, the complainant could have furnished the translated version of the required documents irrespective of the fact as to whether she was under an obligation of the same or otherwise. Anyhow, now the parties are present before the Forum and second opposite party is ready and willing to pay the policy amount provided the complainant furnishes translated bill as mentioned. From the documents, it appears, almost all the required documents were enclosed with the claim petition except claim discharge voucher.<br /> <br /> 13. Both the opposite parties contended that, the complainant is premature, but as noted above, in fact, the complainant has submitted claim, which was in fact forwarded by the first opposite party to second opposite party and the complainant has produced required documents. However, as noted above, translated version of some documents were not produced, for which the complainant cannot be blamed. However, for convenience it is observed that, the complainant to furnish translated version of the documents along with the claim discharge voucher dully signed and stamped in the format immediately to the second opposite party.<br /> <br /> 14. Though the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- considering the entire facts, we feel it awarding interest on the policy amount will meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The second opposite party is hereby directed to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of receipt of the claim petition of the complainant, within a month from the date of receipt of discharge voucher from the complainant with other heirs if any.<br /> 3. The second opposite party to pay further sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant, cost of the proceedings.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 16th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />