BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 30/2012.
THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Ramalakshmi W/o. K. R.Satyaraju, aged
about 55 years, household, R/o. Gorebal Camp.
PO: Gorebal village Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist. Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- 1. The Branch Manager, V3 Life Care India Pvt.
Ltd., Naswale building, first floor, Opp: Jay Jalaram Saw Mill, Hospet Road, at Koppal, Dist: Koppal
2. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, Station Road, Raichur.
CLAIM : For direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs.
3 Lakhs in respect of policy bearing No. 472590/-482011/85 and its renewal agreement dt. 25-102011 and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages, mental torture etc., with interest and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
.
Date of institution :- 19-04-12.
Notice served :- 16-05-12.
Date of disposal :- 19-10-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Ayyangouda Patil, Advocate.
Opposite No-1 represented by Sri. M.A. Umachagi, Advocate.
Opposite No-2 represented by Sri. Vikram Nair, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Ramalakshmi against opposite No-1 V3 Life Care India Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office Koppal and opposite No-2 Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office at Raichur under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in respect of policy bearing No. 472590/482011/85 and as per renewal its renewal agreement dt. 25-10-2011 and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards damages, mental torture etc., with interest and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she is the nominee under the policy bearing No. 472590/482011/85 for assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- subscribed by her son Reddy Suri Chandra, issued by opposite No-1 who tied up with opposite No-2 Insurance Company. The said policy was renewed vide renewal agreement V3 on 25-10-2011.
On 14-11-2011 her son policyholder died in the motor accident. Police case was registered and thereafter, complainant being a nominee under the policy, filed claim petition with relevant, documents with policy, to opposite No-1 to settle the claim, but opposites denied her claim with one or other reasons, accordingly this complaint was filed by her for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. Opposite No-1 V3 Life Care India Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office Koppal appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying all the claims of complainant. Opposite No-1 is not a Insurance Company, it has got network of co-ordinationship with opposite No-2 Insurance Company. As per the terms and conditions of the renewal agreement if, death of policyholder took place within 45 days, opposite No-1 is not responsible for the claim. Opposite No-2 is responsible for it. Opposite No-1 acted only as an agent. Hence, the claim of the complainant is not legal against it. The DCF Raichur has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter as its Branch Office is at Koppal District and thereby, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. Opposite No-2 Insurance Company filed its written version, by denying the total claim of the complainant, as the Branch Office at Raichur is not a necessary party. It not issued any policy by receiving the premium from complainant. It is only Koppal Branch, had business with opposite No-1 and deceased Reddy Suri Chandra. Hence, this complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, she is the nominee under the policy bearing No. 472590/482011/85 for assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- subscribed by her son Reddy Suri Chandra from opposite No-1 tied up with opposite No-2 Insurance Company at his lifetime and thereafter, the said policy was renewed vide renewal agreement V3 on 25-10-2011 and thereafter on 14-11-2011 her son died in the motor accident, as such, she filed claim petition with necessary documents by surrendering the policy, but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not shown their interest in settling her claim and thereby both opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in her complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 are marked. On the other hand the affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. No documents filed.
8. On perusal of the pleadings of all the parties, their respective affidavit evidences and documents relied by them, we are of the view that documents Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 Nagarikar Suraksha Policy Certificate issued by Opposite No-2 Insurance Company. Ex.P-4 and other documents clearly establishes the fact that, the present complainant is a nominee under the policy bearing No. 472590/482011/85 for assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was subscribed by the son of complainant by name Reddy Suri Chandra and renewal agreement V3 dt. 25-10-2011 also confirms the same. The other records which are at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 discloses the fact that, opposite No-1 is tie up with opposite No-2 Insurance Company.
9. It is further fact that, the son of complainant by name Reddy Suri Chandra died in the motor accident on 14-11-2011.
10. The other facts stated by the complainant clearly establishes the fact that, she filed claim petition before the opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but no one have settled her claim.
11. The main contention of opposite No-1 is that, it is acted only as an agent and it paid all the premiums to opposite No-2 Insurance Company. Opposite No-2 Branch Office at Raichur denied the entire case of complainant regarding issuance of policy premiums received etc., only on the ground that, the Branch Office at Raichur is not having any knowledge about the said business.
12. Keeping in view of the contentions and rival contentions of the parties in this regard, we are of the view that, opposite No-2 is the Branch Office of main office of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Similarly Koppal Branch is also a Branch Office of the said Insurance Company. In the above circumstances, opposite No-2 cannot deny the entire transaction of the complainant with regard to policy issued by its main office. This Raichur Branch has not taken any pain to collect any information either from its head office or from Branch Office at Koppal. Hence we are not accepting total denial of claim of the complainant by opposite No-2 and thereby its negligence in considering the claim of complainant.
13. As regards to opposite No-1 is concerned, it issued number of documents vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 with regard to coverage of the Nagarika Suraksha Individual Policy. Hence opposite No-1 is also found guilty under deficiency in its service, as it is having tie up with opposite No-2 Insurance Company.
14. The main contention of opposite No-1 in this case is that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, as Branch office of it is situated at Koppal and not in Raichur. Complainant filed certified copy of the order passed by the DCF Koppal, wherein, it held that, the Koppal DCF has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint, however we have gone through the relevant provisions with regard to territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In the light of the circumstances stated above, we are of the clear view that, opposite No-2 Branch Office of Oriental Insurance Company situated in Raichur is not a subordinate Branch to the Koppal Insurance Branch. Raichur Oriental Insurance Company Branch office is a subordinate Branch to the main office of Oriental Insurance Company, as such, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. Hence, we rejected this contention of opposite No-1, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
15. As regards to the claim of complainant is concerned, the original policy issued is for assured sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, including Rs. 2,40000 personal accident benefit and Rs. 60,000/- towards hospitalization. Here the accidental death of policyholder is a proved fact vide FIR Ex.P-7, complaint Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9 is the charge sheet filed by the police in the criminal case. Keeping in view of all these facts, we are of the view that, the complainant is entitled to get only assured sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as per the policy certificate Ex.P-3 not more than that, because of the fact that, complainant not filed any documents to claim hospitalization charge.
16. The complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service and lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- from opposites Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
17. The complainant is also entitled to get future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. Accordingly we answered Point No- 2.
POINT NO.3:-
18. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to get total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainant is also entitled to get future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- from the date of the complaint till realization of the full amount.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby granted one month time from the date of judgment to make the payment of the above said sum with interest to complainant.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-10-12)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
