For Complainant : Sri Subash Chandra Panda, Advocate & associates.
For Opp. Party : Sri Sisir Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
-x-
The above two cases have been heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and as the complainants in both the cases are one so also the Ops and the cause of action and subject matter in both the cases is one and same, we have clubbed up both the cases for a common order.
1. The complainant, Smt. Satyabati Turuk, W/o late Bipin Bihari Turuk has filed both cases claiming relief against the OP due to death of her husband in a road accident. It is submitted that her husband had insured his motorcycle bearing No.OD-10B-5011 with the OP vide Insurance Policy No.345402/31/2015/2389 valid from 11.07.2014 to 10.07.2015. The above policy covers Personal Accident benefit u/s. III for registered owner-cum-Driver for Rs.1.00 lac and also for Own Damage S.A of Rs.51514/-. It is further submitted that after the accident on 26.08.2014, the Koraput Police came to the spot and took the injured B.B.Turuk to DHH, Koraput and he was declared dead there and the vehicle was completely smashed. It is also submitted that the complainant submitted written report and documents before the OP with slight delay and also prayed to condone the delay but till date the OP has not settled the claims in favour of the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to settle the PA claim along with OD claim of Rs.51, 514/- besides Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and interest in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP filed counter in both the cases admitting the insurance issued in favour of B. B. Turuk and contended that the OP has settled both the claims (PA & OD) but due to non submission of affidavit by the legal heirs so as to disburse the quantum of compensation between all legal heirs, they are not in a position to disburse the amount to the legal heirs. It is contended that Edwin Turuk, father and his daughter Hemalata Turuk have made a representation not to pay any amount to the present complainant since the dispute for legal heir is sub-judiced before the Civil Court. The OP also contended that seeing the dispute between the parties, the OP on 12.03.2015 has issued a letter citing earlier correspondences and requested the complainant to furnish affidavit from all legal heirs to pay the amount in favour of Principal legal heir but the parties have not complied the same for which the OP is not in a position to disburse the settled amount. It is also further contended that the legal heirs of deceased are entitled for Rs.1.00 lac and secondly the legal heirs have neither undertaken any repairs to the damaged vehicle nor submitted any repair bills and hence the OP has settled the damage on net claim basis with condition that the damaged vehicle is to be kept by the legal heirs with R. C. Book and WREC amount for keeping the damaged vehicle has been deducted for Rs.6414/- and balance amount of Rs.45000/- is to be paid to the legal heirs. With above submissions denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their respective cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case Insurance Policy vide No.345402/31/2015/2389 valid from 11.07.2014 to 10.07.2015 to the vehicle bearing No. OD-10B-5011 for a sum assured of Rs.51, 514/- in favour of Bipin Bihari Turuk, insured and the P.A. benefit in favour of the insured for Rs.1.00 lac are all admitted facts. It is seen from the record that the insured while returning from Koraput to his native village at Deoghati with the insured vehicle, it met with accident on 26.08.2014 and the vehicle was completely damaged. The case of the complainant is that being the wife and legal heir of the insured, she filed claim application along with documents with little bit late and requested the OP to condone the delay and effect necessary payment in her favour but the OP did not settle the claim in her favour till filing of these cases.
5. The OP in its counter at para-3 stated that they have settled the P.A. benefit as well as claim regarding damage to the vehicle but due to non submission of affidavits by all the legal heirs they could not fixed the quantum of claim to be distributed between all the legal heirs. In this regard, the OP submitted that on 12.03.2015 they have issued a letter citing earlier correspondences requesting affidavits from all legal heirs to pay the amount to the principal legal heir but the parties have not complied with the same for which the OP is not in a position to disburse the settled amount. We have carefully perused the copy of about six letters issued by the OP to the present complainant insisting documents for settlement of claims but the complainant has not complied to the said letters of the OP. The OP further stated through its counter that Edwin Turuk, father and his daughter Hemalata Turuk have made representation to the OP not to disburse any amount to the present complainant as the dispute for legal heir is sub-judiced before the Civil Court but the complainant is claiming both the claims.
6. In view of above facts and circumstances it is ascertained that the OP settled both the claims but could not be able to disburse due to conflict between the family members of the complainant. The OP has also filed copy of letter dt.12.3.2015 issued in favour of the complainant requesting affidavits for settlement of both the claims in favour of the principal legal heir. The other legal heirs have not filed any affidavit for this purpose. Had the affidavits been filed in time, the OP would have been able to disburse both the claims in favour of the principal legal heir i.e. the present complainant but due to the lapses on the part of the complainant, the claim could not be disbursed. In the above premises, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
7. Further it is seen that the OP has settled OD claim at Rs.45, 000/- against the SA of Rs.51, 514/-. The OP against such settlement explained that the legal heirs of the deceased have neither repaired the vehicle nor submitted any repair bill. Hence they have settled the OD claim on net salvage basis with condition that the damaged vehicle is to be kept by the legal heirs with R. C. Book and the WREC amount for keeping the vehicle has been deducted for Rs.6414/- and the balance amount of Rs.45, 000/- is to be paid to the legal heirs. As such we do not find any deformity in settling the OD claims by the OP. Further the OP has already settled the P.A. benefits of Rs.1.00 lac to be disbursed to the principal legal heir.
8. In this case the present complainant is the wife of the deceased, B. B. Turuk as ascertained from the Legal Heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Koraput dt.10.01.2016 which is on record. In our opinion, the present complainant is the principal legal heir and she is entitled for both the claims from the OP. As we have already held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in settling the claims, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or interest on the claim amount or cost of litigation as prayed for. Due to lapses on the part of the complainant, the delay in disbursing the claim amount occurred but not for the OP.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to pay Rs.1, 00, 000/- towards P.A. benefits and Rs.45, 000/- towards damage of the insured vehicle to the complainant who is the principal legal heir within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till actual payment. Accordingly, C.C No.85 & 86 of 2017 are disposed of.
(to dict.)
