Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/45/2017

A.S. Mahadevappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, National Insurnce Company limited - Opp.Party(s)

AM Rudramuni

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19/05/2017

DISPOSED      ON:12/01/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 45/2017

 

DATED:  12^th JANUARY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT/S	A.S.Mahadevappa, S/o Shivalingappa, Age: 65 Years, R/o Chikkulikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.   (Rep by Sri.A.M.Rudramuni, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Channagiri Town, Davanagere District.   (Rep by Sri. B.M. Ravichandra, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay the accident benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.10,000/- towards mental shock, Rs.20,000/- towards damages  and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of car bearing Reg. No. KA-17 N-69162 and the same was insured with the OP under policy No.616015311410001064 for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016 under comprehensive policy covering personal accident CSI per head, owner/driver of the vehicle for Rs.2,00,000/-, nomination in the name of Rathnamma (wife) and unnamed four passengers each of Rs.1,00,000/-.  On 29.07.2015 near Bhootappa Temple on NH-4 road near Imangala, Hiriyur taluk, the front tyre of the said car was burst as a result, the car was dashed against the road side divider and the inmates of the car ie., Rathnamma was sustained head injury and died.  After the accident, the complainant intimated the same to the OP and in turn OP appointed one Surveyor and assessed the damages caused to the said vehicle.  On that day itself, the complainant asked to sanction for Rs.1,00,000/- personal benefit of his wife deceased Rathnamma.  The OP has assessed the damages and settle the claim of the car bill but, not settled the claim of the personal benefit of his wife.  The complainant approached the OP for so many times for settlement but, the OP neglected to settle the claim of the personal benefit of his wife.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 01.08.2015 the date on which the vehicle met with an accident near Bhootappa Temple, NH-4 road, Imangala, Hiriyur taluk which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      After issuance of notice to the OP, OP appeared through Sri. B.M. Ravi Chandra, Advocate and filed version.  As per the version of the OP, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.   The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  It is further stated that, the allegations made in para 1 to 8 are all false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, the vehicle was insured with the OP and the policy was in force as on the date of accident.  Further it is admitted that, the wife of the complainant and four unnamed passengers have covered personal accident benefit for Rs.1,00,000/- each.  The ID value of the said vehicle is of Rs.5,70,000/-.  But the complainant has not filed any application before the OP claiming personal accident benefit of his wife.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-5 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP, one Sri. Malatesh C. Hallur, the Assistant Manager, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.  

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service for not settling the personal accident benefit of his deceased wife and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of car bearing Reg. No. KA-17 N-69162, the same was insured with the OP under the above said policy valid for the period from 31.03.2015 to 30.03.2016.  The complainant is also having personal accident benefit for Rs.1,00,000/-.  On 01.08.2015 the said car met with an accident near Bhootappa Temple on NH-4 road near Imangala, Hiriyur taluk and in the said accident, the wife of the complainant by name Smt. Rathnamma was sustained head injury and died.   After the accident, the complainant intimated the same to the OP.  The OP appointed one Surveyor for assessment of the damage caused to the said vehicle. After the assessment, the OP has settled the claim of the complainant but the OP has neglected to settle the claim of his wife’s personal accident benefit.  The complainant approached the OP for so many times and requested to settle the claim but, OP neglected to settle the claim.  In this case, the OP has taken a main contention in its version that, the complainant has not filed any application before it claiming personal accident benefit of his wife deceased Rathnamma.  But, the documents and the affidavit filed by the complainant clearly shows that, the complainant approached the OP for so many times asking the personal accident benefit of his wife deceased Smt.Rathnamma. 

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the OP.  As per the exhibits produced by the complainant, clearly shows that, the vehicle met with an accident near Bhootappa Temple, NH-4, Imangala, Hiriyur Taluk on 01.08.2015.  After the accident, the complainant has filed an application before the OP seeking settlement of the claim under personal accident benefit of his wife and also and the surveyor appointed by the OP has assessed the damages caused to the vehicle.  But the OP has assessed the damages caused to the vehicle and settle the same but not settled the claim of personal accident benefit of his deceased wife Smt. Rathnamma.  The OP has taken a main contention in its version that, the complainant has not approached them asking personal accident benefit of his wife.  The documents itself shows that, the policy covers the personal accident benefit and also the damages caused to the vehicle.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP/insurance Company in settling the claim under personal accident benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

            The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

            It is ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization.

            It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

            It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 12/01/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Malatesh C. Hallur, Assistant Manager of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint given by one Kumar
03	Ex-A-3:-	Charge sheet
04	Ex-A-4:-	P.M. report
05	Ex-A-5:-	Motor vehicle accident report

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**