DATE OF FILING: 5.9.2013.

        DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.09.2016.

Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member (W)  

                        The complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/S 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps) and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.

                        2. Briefly stated the fact of the case is that the complainant’s son namely P. Chiranjeevi is the policy Holder of the policy bearing No. 417005/31/12/023628-001 dated 12.4.2012 commencement from 12.04.2012 to 16.3.2013.  The said policy was issued by the O.P.No.1 after receipt of the required premium for the purpose and O.P.No.2 as the Branch office maintained by O.P.No.1 for purpose of the insurance business. They deal within this area and also other areas as instructed by O.P.No.1, accordingly the Opposite Parties are aware of the existence of the said policy. The policy in question issued with personal accident coverage U/S III for the owner/driver (C.S.I.) for Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Tow Lakhs) as stated thereon. While the matter stood thus the policy holder late P. Chiranjeevi faced the motor vehicle accident on 19.8.2012 occurred at about 2 A.M. on N.H-5 near Mukteswar Temple of Randha and died on the spot. This fact was reported to the Golanthara Police Station as registered vide P.S. Case No./FIR No. 114/12 dated 20.8.2012 U/S 279/338/304(A) I.P.C, and the postmortem was also made in connection to the said accident. Subsequently the complainant enquired from the O.P.No.2 regarding the present claim as per their instruction submitted the required claim application along with the relevant documents before the concerned authority who did not give any acknowledgement to the effect of receiving the claim application with the oral undertaking to process the same for payment but about one year is going to be completed but none of the Opposite Party paid the amount which the complainant is entitled to get on the strength of the policy in question and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same nor even they have made any single correspondence in connection to the said claim amount for deficiency in service. The complainant issued advocate notice on dated 7.6.2013 by registered post with A.D. to the O.P.No.1 which was duly acknowledged. But the O.P. remained silent over the matter without giving any reply to the same and the demand as made in the said notice is not paid to the complainant till date thereby giving rise to mental agony of the complainant. In the present circumstance as she is suffering a lot and passing through very hard days after the sad demise of her son due to accident as there is no other source of income available with her for livelihood. So the O.Ps are to pay compensation towards damages due to the reason that they have violated the terms of the above said insurance contract in question resulting in breach of the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the person accident claim of Rs.2,00,000/- with up-to-date interest, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-in the best interest of justice.

            3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed version through his advocate.  It is stated that the averments made in the complaint are all not true and correct and those that are not specifically admitted herein are denied to have been denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complaint is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The complainant is residing at Samala kota, Dist: East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh). The vehicle registered at Andhrapradesh and the insurance policy is also obtained at Andhrapradesh. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle where the driver was working is also belonged to Andhrapradesh. The complainant made the O.P.No.2 by quoting the address is also false.  There is no such office of the Shriram General Insurance Company at Berhampur. Hence there is no office of the O.Ps within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the present claim is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has never intimated to the O.P.No.2 about the death occurred on 19.8.2012, and also not made any claim for the death of her husband with the O.P.No.1 and after long lapse of more than 11 months issued a notice though advocate on 7.6.2013 to the O.P.No.1 exclusively for the purpose of the present litigation a cause of action was attempted to invent by the present complaint, which did not possess any merit and hence the case against this O.P. is not maintainable. Such a vexatious creation of cause in bringing the present litigation be viewed with heavy hand and the complainant be asked to submit authentic evidence of lodging of any intimation and claim before the insurance company. The averments made in the last Para of the complaint clearly show that the complainant has not lodged any intimation as well as claim before the O.P.No.1 till filing of the complaint. Hence the present claim is also not maintainable on the ground that as there is no slightest sign of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.No.1 and also there is no allegation of deficiency of service in anywhere in the complainant. Hence the present claim is also not maintainable under the provision of the Act. The averments made in the complaint against these O.Ps are all baseless and created exclusively for the purpose of putting a claim. The complainant has not approached with clean hands and has played fraud, has misled, has adhered to all such frivolous activities, has deliberately suppressed the material evidence, has concealed the truth for the purpose of the claim. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any such relief. The complainant is not the sole legal heir/successor of the deceased. Hence the present claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice.  

            4. On the date of hearing we heard argument from both parties at length. We have gone through the complaint petition, version and documents available in the record. The Advocate for O.Ps filed a memo dated 19.7.2016  that the O.P. has already paid the J.P.A. claim vide cheque No.339477 dated 26.12.2014 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh), Claims status report, E-mail letter dated 25.3.2015, scan copy of cheque and supported letter dated 6.1.2015, full and final settlement receipt signed by complainant on dated 12.1.2014. The Forum directed to the advocate for the complainant to furnish whether claim amount has been received by him or not on dt.4.8.2016 and 11.8.2016.But advocate for the complainant did not submit the same before the Hon’ble Court.  Hence in such circumstances after careful perusal of case record and verification of documents filed by O.Ps the Forum feels that the complainant have received the amount on 12.1.2014 from the O.Ps as full and final settlement. It is also found from case record that the signature of the complainant is matched with signature on the revenue stamp and supporting documents of O.P. placed as (Annexure 4)on the case record. The O.Ps complied the grievance of the complainant on dated 12.1.2014 by duly signing on the claim voucher.  Hence the complaint of the complainant devoid of merit.

            In the result, we dismissed the case. No order as to cost and compensation. The case is disposed of accordingly.

            The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd September 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of be order be supplied to the parties free of cost.