Date of Filing ::19-08-2011
Date of Disposal ::25-08-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Tuesday, this the 25th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.181/2011
Ghoutukatla Anjamma,
wife of late Koteswara Rao,
Hindu, aged about 50 years,
resident of D.No.2-124,
Mallavarappadu Village,
Tangutur Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited,
rep., by its Branch Manager,
Municipal Office Road,
Chirala, Prakasam District. … Opposite Party
This complaint under section-12 of consumer protection Act, 1986, coming on 14-08-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri Pegada Srinivasulu, advocate for complainant and Sri K. Visweswara Rao, advocate for opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The husband of the complainant by name Koteswara Rao insured his vehicle with the opposite party for the period from 28-09-2009 to 27-09-2010. It was a package policy. The complainant was the nominee under the policy. The insured Koteswara Rao was murdered in December, 2009. A criminal case was registered also. The vehicle was damaged and burnt. The complainant approached the opposite party for payment of the sum assured with necessary documents. The opposite party has not settled the claim. The same is deficiency of service. The complainant got issued a legal notice also. Hence, the complaint for payment of the sum assured with costs and compensation.
2. The brief averments of the counter of opposite party are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The complainant did not furnish the documents. As per the complaint given to the police, the vehicle was burnt by throwing a match stick into the oil tank and the vehicle. It is not a fire accident. The incident was due to the dispute between the insured and Srinivasulu. That contingency was not covered by the insurance. The vehicle was burnt due to the disputes between the insured and accused. The opposite party is not liable to the claim. The complainant is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the complaint. The dispute will not come under the jurisdiction to this forum. There is no deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite party committed a deficiency of service?”
4. The complainant filed her affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the opposite party, the affidavit of the assistant divisional manager, was filed. A certified copy of the policy copy was filed.
5. POINT:- This is a claim with regard to the damage of the motorcycle of the insured in a fire accident. Ex.A1 is the schedule of the policy. The value of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.38,800/- in Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the driving licence. Ex.A3 is the copy of the certificate of registration. Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the copies of legal notice, postal acknowledgment and postal receipt respectively. Ex.A6 is the copy of the death certificate. Ex.A7 is the certificate of the police. Ex.A8 is the copy of the complaint given by the complainant to the police.
6. Admittedly the deceased died due to the attack by some persons with deadly weapons. The details of the criminal case are not relevant for the disposal of this complaint. Admittedly the vehicle of the deceased which was insured with the opposite party was damaged in an incident. The police certificate shows that the vehicle was damaged when the same was set fire by the accused in the criminal case. The vehicle was damaged in abnormal circumstances. The repudiation of the policy on the ground that the vehicle was damaged due to the grudges between the insured and the accused in the criminal case and that the same was not due to the accidental fire, the same cannot be accepted. Some persons attacking the driver of the vehicle and setting fire to his vehicle is also unexpected. Hence, it also comes under an accident. Hence, it can be concluded that the vehicle of the deceased was damaged in an accident. The opposite party is liable to make good the loss, as per the contract of insurance. The value of the vehicle was declared as Rs.38,800/- in Ex.A1. Since the insured died, the said amount is payable to the complainant, the wife of the insured. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for refund of the value of the vehicle as mentioned in Ex.A1. The complainant is entitled interest at 9% P.a., from the date of complaint till realization. The complainant is granted costs of Rs.2,000/-. Considering the circumstances of the case, we are of the view the compensation is not necessary. The point is held accordingly.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed, ordering the opposite party to pay Rs.38,800/- (rupees thirty eight thousand and eight hundred only) with interest at 9% P.a., from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant along with costs of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only). The claim for the rest is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 25th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-xxx sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDNT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 01-06-2012 Ghoutukatla Anjamma, wife of late Koteswara Rao, Hindu,
aged about 50 years, D.No.2-124,resident of Mallavarappadu Village, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
R.W.1 16-04-2012 Syed Masthan Shariff, son of syed Mohamed, Assistant
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chilakaluripet.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 Photostat copy of Schedule of the policy.
Ex.A2 Photostat copy of Driving licence.
Ex.A3 Photostat copy of Certificate of registration.
Exs.A4 22-02-2011 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgment and Postal receipt.
Ex.A6 Photostat copy of the death certificate.
Ex.A7 Photostat copy of certificate of the police.
Ex.A8 Photostat copy of the complaint given by the complainant
to the police.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY:
-NIL-
Sd/-xxxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
/free copy//
