BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag COMPLAINT NO.106/2022 DATED 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY-2023 |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE MR. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER |
|
HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,
B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed.,
WOMAN MEMBER
Complainant/s: 1. Smt. S.S.Sujata Gupta
W/o S.K.Srinivas Gupta,
Age:29 Yrs, Occ:Household work
R/o # 13, Rajiv Gandhinagar, Teacher
Colony, VTC:Gadag,
Post:Gadag-582 101, Tq:Dist:Gadag,
2. Gnana Gupta S.S.
D/o Srinivas Gupta S.K.
Age:02 Yrs, Occ:Nil
Minor represented by her natural mother Smt. S.S.Sujata Gupta
W/o S.K.Srinivas Gupta, Age:29 Yrs,
Occ:Household work,
R/o # 13, Rajiv Gandhinagar,
Teacher Colony, VTC:Gadag,
Post:Gadag-582 101Tq: & Dist:Gadag.
3. Smt. S.K.Laxmi Gupta
W/o S.V.Kubera Gupta
Age:53 Yrs, OccHousehold work,
R/o 76, Ward, Main Road, Near Old Police Station, Gudekote, Kudligi,
Gudekote Kudligi, Bellary-583130.
Dist:Bellary.
4. S.V.Kuber Gupta S/o Vasudevshetty
Age:57 Yrs, Occ:Coolie
R/o 76, Ward, Main, Near Old Police Station, Gudekote, Kudligi,
Gudekote Kudligi, Bellary-583 130.
Dist:Bellary,
(Rep. by Sri.R.M.Doddamani, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents :- | | 1. The Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Officer, 2A, 2nd Floor, 84 Ramson Complex P.B.Road, Opposite of K.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot. Hosur, Hubli-580 021. 2. The Managing Director, Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit No.601 and 602, 6th Floor, Reliable Tech Park, Cloud City Campus, Gate No.31,
Thane-Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400 708. (Op No.1 & 2 rep. by Sri.M.A.Moulvi, Advocate) |
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. YASHODA.B.PATIL, WOMAN MEMBER
The complainants have filed the complaint U/Sec.35 (a) (i) of the C.P. Act, 2019, seeking direction against the Ops to pay the Personal Accident compensation amount a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of accident date 31.03.2021 till realization, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant No.1 is wife of deceased complainant No.2 is daughter and complainant No.3 & 4 are parents of deceased Shri. S.K.Srinivas Gupta who was the driver-cum-owner of the
vehicle-D’zire New VDI/Maruti Swift D’zire VDI BS IV, bearing No.KA-35/B-8766. The said vehicle got insured with Ops, for the period from 25.01.2021 to 24.01.2022 and covered liability with compulsory personal accident (CPA), own damage and also 3rd party claim. On 31.03.2021 Srinivas was driving the vehicle on NH-50 near Managuli near Petrol Pump towards Kudagi he met with an accident. Who sustained injury later died at the KLE’s Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belagavi, complaint was lodged to SHO, Managuli P.S. in crime No.49/2021 and charge sheet was file for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 338, 283, 304(a) of IPC. Complainant No.1visited the office of Op No.1 on 15.07.2021 and submitted the claim with documents for settlement of the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-. Ops did not settle the claim inspite of repeated request finally a legal notice was issued through counsel, however, they did not settle the claim. So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.
3. In pursuance of service of notice, OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and Op No.1 filed written version.
4. The brief facts of written version filed by OP No.1 are as under:
OP No.1 denied the various allegations that, accident has occurred and no intimation was received, complainants are not a consumer to this Ops. Ops contended that complainants have not assisted the company investigator inspite of his regular visits to the complainants and they have not produced any relevant documents to provide the necessary service to them. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OPs. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove the case, the complainant No.1 has filed her affidavit and got examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18. Sri. Shivanand Mudhol, has filed affidavit for OPs and got examined as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.Op-1.
6. Heard, the arguments on both sides.
7. The points for consideration to us are as under:
- Whether the complainants prove the deficiency of service committed by the Ops?
- Whether the complainants are
entitled for therelief?
- What Order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No. 1: In the affirmative.
Point No. 2: In the partly affirmative.
Point No. 3: As per the final Order
R E A S O N S
9. Point No.1 :- The learned counsel for complainants argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18, complainants have proved the case. The learned counsel for OPs argued that, complainants have failed to prove that, deficiency of service is committed by the OPs.
10. On perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that, the complainant No.1 is wife, complainant No.2 daughter and complainant No.3 & 4 are parents of deceased Shri. S.K.Srinivas Gupta,. who was the driver cum owner of the vehicle-D’zire New VDI/Maruti Swift D’zire VDI BS IV, bearing No.KA-35/B-8766. The said vehicle was insured with Ops, for the period from 25.01.2021 to 24.01.2022 and covered a liability with compulsory personal accident (CPA), own damage and also 3rd party claim. On 31.03.2021 Srinivas was driving the vehicle on NH-50 near Managuli near Petrol Pump towards Kudagi he met with an accident, Who sustained injury later died at the KLE Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belagavi. Complaint was lodged to SHO, Managuli P.S. in crime No.49/2021 and charge sheet was file for the offence punishable U/Sec.279, 338, 283, 304(a) of IPC. Complainant No.1visited the office of Op No.1 on 15.07.2021 and submitted the claim with documents for settling the claim Rs..15,00,000/-. Ops did not settle the claim inspite of repeated request finally a legal notice was issued through counsel, however, they did not settle the claim. So, Ops have committed the deficiency of service.
11. Per contra, RW-1 has field affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by Op No.1. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations that, accident has occurred and no intimation was received, complainant is not a consumer to this Ops. Ops contended that complainants have not assisted the company investigator inspite of his regular visits to the complainants and they have not produced any relevant documents to provide the necessary service to them. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by the OPs.
12. At the very outset, Ops have not disputed the insurance which was in existence as on the date of accident and also vehicle is covered with liability for compulsory personal accident (CPA) for owner own damage and 3rd party claim. Ex.C-1 FIR, Ex.C-2 complaint, Ex.C-3 statement Ex.C-4 inquest, Ex.C-5 Crime report, with accident sketch, Ex.C-6 Seizure of the panchanama of the vehicle Ex.C-7 description of the place of occurrence, Ex.C-8 Post mortem, Ex.C-9 IMV report, Ex.C-10 charge sheet, Ex.C-12 death certificate, clearly goes to show that, the accident has occurred, and Sri. S.K.Srinivas Gupta died due to injury sustained in the accident, Ex.C-11 copy of insurance and Ex.C-18 is the original certificate cum policy schedule are also not disputed by the Ops. Ex.C-14 & Ex.C-16 are legal notices issued to Ops, Ex.C-15 & Ex.C-17 are postal receipts reveal that, the complainants requested the Ops to settle the claim. However, Ops did not reply or settle the claim. The main contention of RW-1 is that complainants have not assisted the Company investigator inspite of his regular visits to the complainants and they have not produced any relevant documents to provide necessary service to them, this goes to show that it was very well in their knowledge. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted, because inspite of oral, and repeated request by the PW-1 and after issuance of legal notices also Ops did not reply or settle the claim. Ops never issued any intimation to complainants to produce relevant documents or requested in writing to assist the investigator. Ops have not specifically stated when investigator visited the spot or met the complainants, whether investigator submitted any report for non-Co-Operation of the complainants. Therfore, complainants have proved that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
13. Point No.2:- For the reasons stated above, the complainant have proved that, OPs have committed the deficiency of service and they are entitled for the relief, as per Ex.P-18 policy, which is a vehicle covered liability with compulsory personal accident (CPA) cover for owner, own damage and third party a claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Complainants are claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a., it is on higher side. So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank, it is proper to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization. Complainants being the legal heirs widow, daughter and parents of Srinivas Gupta, the deceased have suffered mental agony due to deficiency of service committed by the Ops. Therefore, complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, we answer point No.2 in partly affirmative.
14. Point No.3:-In the result, we pass the following:
//O R D E R//
The complaint filed U/Sec.35 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed against OP No.1 & 2.
The complainants are jointly entitled for the claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from OP No.1 & 2 with an interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
Further, the complainants are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Op No.1 & 2 are liable to pay jointly and severally and are directed to pay the above claim amount within two months from the date of this order.
Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 17th day of February-2023)
(Shri Raju N. Metri) Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Baskar.Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
-: ANNEXURE :-
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1: Smt. S.S.Sujata Gupta W/o S.K.Srinivas Gupta,
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1 : The copy of the FIR.
Ex.C-2: The copy of the complaint.
Ex.C-3: The copy of the additional statement.
Ex.C-4: The copy of the inquest Panchanama
Ex.C-5: The copy of the Crime detail from with accident sketch.
Ex.C-6: The copy of t Lorry and Car seizure panchanama.
Ex.C-7 : Description of the place of Occurrence.
Ex.C-8 : The copy of the Medico legal report.
Ex.C-9: The Copy of the Motor Vehicles accident report.
Ex.C-10: Copy of the Charge sheet.
Ex.C-11: Xerox copy of Certificate cum policy schedule.
Ex.C-12 & 13:Death certificates.
Ex.C-14: Legal notice.
Ex.C-15: Postal receipts.
Ex.C-16: Legal notice.
Ex.C-17: Postal receipt.
Ex.C-18: Original certificate cum policy schedule.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
RW-1 : Shivanand Malleshappa Mudhol
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Ex.Op-1 : Aauthority letter.
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
