Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/58/2014

M.Narassamma,W/o.Late Meesabathina Narayana Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, National Insurance company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

V.Chandrashekarreddy

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

Date of filing       : 18-08-2014

Date of Disposal :  10-11-2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

         Thursday, this the  10th  day of  NOVEMBER, 2016.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                             

                      C.C.No.58/2014

 

M.Narasamma,

W/o.Late Meesabathina Narayana Rao,

Hindu, aged 23 years,

Resident of Vaddipalem,

Buchireddypalem,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                          …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

The Branch Manager,

National Insurance Company Limited,

Micro Office,

Dargamitta,

Nellore-4.                                                                            … Opposite party

 

This matter is coming on  17-10-2016 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Chandrasekher Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and     Sri N.Kodandarami Reddy,  Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

 

   The complaint is filed against the opposite party by the complainant directing it to pay Rs.1,00,000/- being the P.A. benefits covered under the policy along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of his death i.e. on  07-02-2014 till its payment; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for causing mental agony and sufferings and also to grant Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint and pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deemed it and fit under the circumstances of the case.

 

I.  The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

 

1.    It is the case of the complainant that she is the nominee of her deceased husband Mr.M.Narayana Rao, S/o.Mr.Kurmaiah, who is the registered owner of the motor cycle of Hero Moto Corp. (formerly Hero Honda) Passion PRO DRS CCR year of manufacturing 2012.  He has insured the said motor cycle with the opposite party company under policy certificate No.35100731126203195045, covering the risks of Personal accident benefits (Owner/Driver) for the period from 21-02-2013 to midnight of 20-02-2014.    He had paid necessary premium of Rs.50/- also.  The complainant was shown as nominee under the above said policy.

 

2.   It is also further submitted by her that in para-4 of  complaint that while the said policy was in force and her late husband met with an accident on 07-02-2014 and subsequently died.  A case in crime No.42/2014 was registered in Nellore Rural P.S. for the offence under sec. 304(a) I.P.C.  The complainant being the nominee under the policy is entitled to receive the death benefits under P.A. Cover.  She had submitted the claim on 10-02-2014 enclosing a copy of the FIR, P.M. Certificate, inquest report, final report along with claim application for verification. But the opposite party is delaying the payment and so far the Company has not chosen to pay the amount under the P.A. Policy. Thus there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the company is liable to pay the amount with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the death of the insured till its payment.

 

3.  It is also further submitted by her that in para-5 of  complaint at page no.2 that she got issued a legal notice dt.31-07-2014 through her counsel calling upon the opposite party to pay the P.A benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest.  The opposite party had received the said notice but it failed to comply the demand.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

      The opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dt.20-01-2015 opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant.  Those allegations are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 

 

III.  The complainant had filed an affidavit as PW1 on 31-07-2015 and she had also filed her written arguments on 07-08-2015 before this Forum and the documents which are marked on her behalf as Exs.A1 to A11, whereas the  opposite party had filed one document which is marked as Ex.B1 on its behalf and also the opposite party had filed an affidavit as RW1 on 22-07-2015. 

 

 

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    party towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

          (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points which are inter-related and depends on each other and that they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint, documents, affidavit and written arguments filed herein. The opposite party has stated that in written version/counter, affidavit and stand on its defence with proof of documents. It is nothing but repetition of them once again in her complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

 

            The learned counsel for the complainant Sri Venati Chandra Sekhar Reddy has vehemently argued that the complainant is being nominee of the policy.   He has further argued that she had submitted the claim on          10-02-2014 and enclosing all the necessary and as stated above the documents but the opposite party had sufficiently delayed without settling the claim and in this connection she had issued a notice dtd.31-07-2014 (Ex.A8) to the opposite party to settle the benefits as per the policy.  He has also further urged that the opposite party had admitted the said policy and also it should be  the claim on non-standard basis and so he has cited  decisions which reported in 2010 ACJ 1250 and 2013(2) CPR 462(NC) for their applicability to the facts of Consumer Case.  Any other breach of warranty conditions of policy including limitation as to use, to pay 75% of admissible claim.  Finally, the learned counsel for complainant has argued that in violation of the driving license conditions is only trivial and the contention of the opposite party is not sustainable.  He has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs as prayed for.

 

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite party:

 

    On the other hand Sri N.Kodanda Rami Reddy for the opposite party has also vehemently argued that on the date of accident 4 persons were proceeding in the motor cycle including the deceased Narayana Rao as against the capacity of two persons in violations of the conditions in the said policy and so the complainant’s claim is not maintainable.  He has also further argued that the deceased Narayana Rao had obtained the learners license with effect from 04-02-2014 and he was authorized to take driving test after 30 days and he could not able to obtain the regular license till his death on 07-02-2014 and failed to comply the conditions stipulated in learner’s license.  So, the deceased Narayana Rao had not obtained valid licence/not having and effective driving license on the date of accident. The complainant’s deceased husband Narayana Rao had possessed learner’s licence only. Her late husband drove the motor cycle with 4 persons as per FIR (Ex.A2) and also her statement in it. Finally, the said learned counsel for the opposite party has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

 

       Heard, the said learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully and perused the case in detail. Every case has to be decided on its own facts.  He who seeks equity must come to the Forum/Court with clean hands.

 

       The point for consideration is that without having effective driving license of the motor vehicle and carrying on four persons on it, violating the conditions of the policy by the deceased said Narayana Rao and being a nominee, can the complainant claim the benefits under the said policy or not?

   

      The answer is that liability of an insurer to reimburse the insured, as an owner of the said  motor cycle not only depends upon the terms and conditions laid down in the contract of insurance but also the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  The law of insurance depends on the principle of “good faith” between the parties.

 

      It is true that the licence was a learner’s licence.  (Ex.A10) and it was valid from 04-02-2014 to 03-08-2014.  The applicant can take driving test after 30 days.  So, it is evident that he had no valid driving license.  As per FIR (Ex.A2) dt.07-04-2014, the deceased Narayana Rao drove the motor cycle with four persons under learner’s license and met with an account.  So, the violation of the conditions of the insurance policy, with regard to the issue of driving license was visualized that license was a learner’s license.  The said decisions referred above by the said learned counsel for complainant are not suitable to the facts or on Law.  They are of no use.  Facts and circumstances of the present case is different from those facts in those said cases, and so 75% amount as non-standard basis, does not arise.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. The said learned counsel for the opposite party has convinced us with proof of FIR (Ex.A2).  The complainant’s counsel has miserably failed in his attempt to put forth correct facts of the case.  Hence, the claim of the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable.

  

     In view of the said facts and circumstances of the consumer case, the complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.

 

Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 10th day of NOVEMBER, 2016.    

 

 

                Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

31-07-2015

:

M.Narasamma, W/o.Late Meesabathina Narayana Rao, Hindu, aged       years, resident of Vaddipalem, Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District.

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

22-07-2015

:

B.Manamadha, S/o.Praveen, aged about 29 years, Hindu, resident of Nellore.

                                                                        

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	21-02-2013	:	Copy of two wheeler certificate-cum-policy schedule Insurance Policy No.35100731126203195045 issued by National Insurance company limited in favaour of the Masabattina Narayana Rao.
Ex.A2	07-02-2014	:	Copy of the FIR in crime No.42/2014 of Nellore rural P.S.
Ex.A3	-	:	Copy of P.M. certificate on M.Narayana Rao
Ex.A4	08-02-2016	:	Copy of the inquest report of the deceased
Ex.A5	28-02-2014	:	Copy of the final report submitted by the SHO Nellore Rural P.S.
Ex.A6	10-02-2014	:	Copy of death intimation.
Ex.A7	17-07-2014	:	Copy of the letter addressed to the opposite party.
Ex.A8	31-07-2014	:	Copy of the legal notice got issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A9	01-08-2014	:	Postal receipt.
Ex.A10	04-02-2014	:	Copy of learner driving license of deceased.
Ex.A11	02-04-2013	:	Copy of the R.C.(certificate of registration) of vehicle bearing No.AP 26AS7795) of the deceased.

 

 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                        

 

Ex.B1

21-02-2013

:

Certified true copy of two wheeler certificate-cum-policy schedule.

 

                                                                              Id/-  

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate, D.No.23-2-11, 1^st cross Road,

(CAM Compound), Ramesh Reddy Nagar, SPSR Nellore – 524 003.

 

2. Sri N.Kodanda Rami Reddy, Advocate, 23/1154, Aravinda Nagar,

Nellore-3

 

Date when order copies were issued: