Karnataka

Bidar

CC/97/2014

Smt. RENUKA W/O NAVNATH SUNKNALE R/O HALHALLI ,BIDAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE BRANCH MANEGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD ,BIDAR & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

DHULAPPA BIRADAR

29 Sep 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 97/2014

 

                                                                                          Date of filing : 01/12/2014

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 29/09/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                           (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:           1. Smt. Renuka w/o Late Navnath Sunknale,

                                              Age: about 21 years, Occ: Household,

                                              R/o village Halhalli,Tq.Aurad-B,

                                                 Dist.Bidar.

 

 

                                          2. Ganesh, S/o late Navnath Sunknale,

                                              Age: about 1 ½ years, minor,

                                              U/g. of his mother Renuka, w/o late   

                                              Navnath Sunknale, complainant no.1.

 

 

              

 

 

                                            (By Shri. Dhulappa Biradar, Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-                 1.  The Branch Manager,

                                                  National Insurance Company Limited.,

                                                  Branch office, Near Nehru Stadium,                                                                               

                                                  Bidar.

 

                                             2.  The Divisional Manager,

                                                  National Insurance Company Ltd.,

                                                  Division office, at Gulbarga.

    

 

 

 

 

 

                                            ( O.P.No.1- Exparte )

                                            ( O.P.No.2 by Shri. Kulkarni Satish,Adv.)                                             

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              The complainants have approached by filing complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act., 1986, claiming compensation from the O.Ps due to the accidental death of the husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant, while driving a motor cycle belonging to the deceased insured with O.P., vide policy no. 610403/31/12 62000002792/ valid from 13-09-2012 to 12-09-2013.

 

2.         The corollary of the averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

                    That on 03-12-2012 deceased Navnath was returning to his village attending some function at Bidar at about 21.30 hours.  One of the relatives i.e. Manoj, S/o Chandrakanth Phulari was pillion rider to the vehicle.  The complainants’ aver that, at about 21.30 hours while the vehicle was being driven by the deceased Navnath, near about Pumpyashram cross,  some wild animals arrived on the road on which, the deceased has applied full brake resulting the fall of the motor cycle and  both the riders on the road.  Deceased Navnath received fatal head injury and died on the spot while the pillion   was also injured, and was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Bidar for treatment.

 

3.           The jurisdictional Janawada Police Station were duly informed  and crime no.125/2012 alleging offences U/s. 279, 338 and 304 A (IPC) was registered against late Navnath.  The Police authorities after getting the FIR registered had taken up investigation, recorded the statements of the witness by name Manoj on 03-12-2012 and have drawn spot mahazar on the same date.  Thereafter the police authorities have conducted an enquiry before witness and Panchas as would be evident from Esx.P.4 of the case.  Thereafter the dead body was subjected to Post-mortem (Ex.P.7) and later on the charge-sheet was filed vide Ex.P.5 and P.6.  In support of their case the complainants have submitted the copy of policy as Ex.P.7, registration certificate of the vehicle as Ex.P.9, IMV report as Ex.P.10.  It is the say of the complainants that inspite of several approaches to the opponents, their claim was not settled for which they caused legal  notice to be issued on 12-04-2014 (Ex.P.13).  The legal notice was met with a reply notice dated 16-09-2014 in which though the facts of the policy was admitted it was claimed that at no point of time the complainants/claimants have ever approached the Opponents for settlement of the claim. 

 

4.        On service of notice by the Court the O.P.no.1 has not appeared before this Court hence, was  placed exparte.

 

 

5.       After receiving the Court notice the O.P.no.2 entered appearance through counsel of his choice and filed written versions claiming that, the complaint is misconceived both in law of facts and is not tenable and  fit to be dismissed.   While admitting the fact of the policy and the name of the insured as Navnath, the O.P no.2 has denied receipt of the notice about facts of the accident.  The O.P no.2 aver that since the complainants have not informed about the accident within 14 days of the incident O.P.no.2 is justified in not settling  the claim. 

 

6.           Considering the facts and circumstances of the case together with the pleadings of the parties in complaint, written version, evidence affidavit, written arguments, basically two points arise for our consideration.

 

 

1. Are not the complainants entitled for insured claims?

 

2. Is  the O.P no.2 justified in withholding the just claims of the complainants on flimsy and whimisical grounds?

 

3. What order?

 

 

7.          Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

               1. In the affirmative.

               2. In the negative.

               3. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

                                                                                        

 

:: REASONS ::

 

8.                 The complainants in support of their claim and to prove the death of the late policy holder have filed documents as detailed at the end of this order.  From the O.P.no.2 no documents has been ever produced.   The investigations and reports submitted by the Police authorities exhibited as Ex.P.1 to P.6 coupled with the Post-mortem report at Ex.P.7 clinchingly prove that the deceased Navnath had met his gory death due to road traffic accident.  The complainants have further filed  insurance document i.e. Ex.P.8 wherein, at page no.2 it has been seen that a premium of Rs.50/- has been collected by the insurance company towards the compulsory personal accident cover for owner cum driver and the insured amount has been shown as Rs. 1,00,000/-.  So by all means it is held that, the complainants have an insurable claim against the O.Ps and thereby are bound by law to fulfil their part of promises.  Against the vociferous claims of the complainants the O.P no.2 is only taking shelter of an untenable plea that they were not intimated about the accident within 14 days by the insured.  Be it whatsoever  the insurers is contesting this case before this Forum, for the last two years and are well aware of the nature of claims so also the documents filed by the complainants justifying their claims.  The O.Ps being  nationalised organisations should have been prudent and fair to take into account the claims and settled it long back.   Instead they have been dragging  this proceedings for the last two years depriving the widow and her infant son from their just entitlements which  is deplorable per se.

 

9.               Giving our anxious considerations to the entire facts and circumstances of the case we herewith pass the following:-

 

ORDER

 

           

 

1.  The complaint is allowed.
2.  The  O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay a policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainants ( as mentioned in 3^rd sheet of Ex.P.8 )along with 12% interest p.a. calculated from the date of accident till the date of realisation.
3. The O.Ps are further directed jointly and severally to pay damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses @ Rs.5,000/- to the complainants.
4.  The amount of claim as mentioned in para no. b when deposited, 50% of the sum would be kept invested in fixed deposit with a nationalised or scheduled Bank of the complainants‘ choice in favour of minor complainant no.2 by name Ganesh, S/o late Navnath till he attains the age of 18.

 

5.  Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of  September-2016 )

 

 

                  Sd-                                                                                     Sd-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                  

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- FIR in crime no.125/12 of Janawada Police Station.
2. Ex.P.2- Statement of witness in the case.
3. Ex.P.3- Spot mahazar.
4. Ex.P.4- Case diary conducted the investigation U/s. 174 CRPC.
5. Ex.P.5- Charge- sheet.
6. Ex.P.6- description of witnesses.
7. Ex.P.7- Post mortem report.
8. Ex.P.8- Insurance certificate in three sheets.
9. Ex.P.9- R.C. book of the vehicle.
10. Ex.P.10- IMV report.
11. Ex.P.11 to P.13-Postal receipts and acknowledgements of legal notice.
12. Ex.P.14- Office copy of legal nitice dt.12-04-2014/
13. Ex.P.15- Reply of legal notice.
14. Ex.P.16- Postal cover of reply notice.

 

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent

 

• Nil    -

 

  Sd-                                                                                                                 Sd-

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.        

mv.