BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 17^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 58/09

Between:

Anthi  Moolam, S/o. Kilavatara,

R/o.H.No.64-128, Upstairs, Fort, S. Nagappa Street, Kurnool-518001.                     Complainant

-Vs- 

1.  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,

     Shop No. 608,609, Whitehouse, Begumpeta, Hyderabad-500016.

2.  The Deputy Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,

     Far East Plaza, IInd Floor, Liberty Road, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

3.  The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,

     Shop No. 10, 11, 12, H.No.40/356/A, Alankar Plaza, Kurnool-518001.                             …Opposite PartieS

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of S.Laxmi Narayana , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite parties  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Smt. C.Preethi , Lady Member)

C.C.No.58/09

1.     This consumer complaint  of the complainant is filed U/S  11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with bonus with 24 Percent  interest p.a , Rs.15,000/-  as compensation for mental agony , cost of the compliant and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.     It the case  of the complainant that his son namely Senthil Kumar  was the  owner cum driver of the Auto trolley bearing No. AP X 1599 , which was insured with opposite party No. 2 and a policy certificate was also issued.  The said  policy also covers  Personal Accident  Policy to the  insured .  The complainants son died in a road accident on 11-04-2007 and the same was intimated to opposite parties and claim form was submitted on 30-5-2008 but  the opposite parties did not settle the claim and post poning the matter on some pretext or other.  Hence the complainant resorted to the forum for relief’s.

3.     In support of his complaint the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) xerox copy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Policy No. 0G-07-1801-1803-00004677 , (2) Xerox copy of F.I.R.in Cr.No. 63/08 , (3) Xerox copy of inquest report , (4) Xerox copy of post mortem report dated 11-04-2007 , (5)  Xerox copy of family  members  certificate , (6) xerox copy of driving license of deceased , (7) Xerox copy of cover note letter dated 23-04-2008 , (8) office copy of legal notice dated 16-01-2009 along with postal receipt, , besides to the sworn affidavit  of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A8 for its appreciation in this case replies to the interrogatories filed.

4.     In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through their standing  counsel and contested the case.  The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite parties  1 and 3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.

5.     The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts and admits that the complainant’s son Senthil Kumar was the owner cum driver of the auto trolley bearing No.AP 12X 1599 and the same was insured  with them.  It further submits that immediately after receiving information about the accident, a surveyor was appointed to asses the damages, on the claim preferred under  own  damages was settled and as far as death claim is concerned no premium has been paid to avail this cover, as the deceased did not pay any premium for coverage of personnel accident coverage to owner cum driver and the coverage opted          for is only for two persons i.e. operation/maintenance i.e. for paid driver and cleaner if any and not owner cum driver.  As no coverage’s is given under personal accident to owner-driver i.e.  the deceased, the claim is entertained and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.     In support of their case the opposite parties relied on Ex.B1 attested copy of policy No.04-07-1801-1803-00004677, besides to the sworn affidavit  of the complainant in reiteration of his written version averments.

7.     Hence , the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled  alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties . ?

8.     It the case of the complainant  that his son Senthil Kumar was the owner cum driver of the Auto Trolley bearing No. AP 12 X 1599 and the said Auto trolley was insured  with opposite parties  vide policy in Ex.A1/B1. The said auto  met with accident  and the driver /cum owner Senthil Kumar died on 11-04-2007 . On the claim preferred by the complainant for the coverage of personnel accident to the owner /driver , it was not settled by the opposite parties.

9.     The complainant submit that  the policy in Ex.A1/B1 covers Personnel Accident  to insured and also to two persons . On perusal  of Ex.A1/B1  , the said policy  covers the  L.L to person  for operation / maintenance  for two persons for which opposite parties  collected premium  of Rs.50/- , but the  said policy no where  shows that the  owner/driver of the said auto is covered under personal accident under the  said policy. On the other hand  the opposite parties  in their written version avernments  submitted  that no premium  is paid to cover owner cum driver under personal  accident policy , and the amount  of Rs.50 /- is paid towards  premium  to cover  the LL to persons for operation /   maintenance for two persons i.e, paid driver/cleaner  if any and not to owner cum driver. The complainant did not  place any such material to prove that the policy in Ex.A1/B1  covers the personal  accident to the owner / driver  and the premium amount of Rs.50/- paid to coverage  of only two persons for operation / maintenance and does not  cover owner/driver. There  is nothing on record  to show that  owner/ driver Senthil  Kumar is covered under personal  accident under Ex.A1/B1 . Onus is on the complainant  to prove that the insured Senthil Kumar is covered  under the policy  in Ex.A1/B1 under Personal Accident and when it is not proved ,the complainant is not remaining entitled  to any of the reliefs sought  and hence the complaint is dismissed.

10.       In the result , the complaint is dismissed without costs

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 17^th day of September, 2009.

         Sd/-                                 Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)          MALE MEMBER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :  Nil           For the opposite parties :Nil

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

             Sd/-                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)               MALE MEMBER           

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties      

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :