The Manager, Shri General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan V/S Smt. Sangamma W/o. Basavaraj Hiremath, Raichur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/80

Smt. Sangamma W/o. Basavaraj Hiremath, Raichur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Shri General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Prasanna Sharma

26 Feb 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/80

Smt. Sangamma W/o. Basavaraj Hiremath, Raichur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, Shri General Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Sri. Namakaran Executive, Sriram Chits & General Insurance Company Ltd., Raichur The Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd, Bangalore						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- C.C.No. 79/10 is filed by Smt. Sangamma, against the opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 80/10 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000 with 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization of the full amount and to award cost. 2. C.C.No. 80/10 is filed by Smt. Sangamma, against the opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 79/10 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 6,900,000/- with 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization of the full amount and to award cost, U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 3. These two complaints arising out of same facts in same place opposites 1 to 3 in both the cases are one and the same who are the concerned officers of Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sitapur-Jaipur, Rajasthan, Bangalore and Raichur. The complainant has relied on the affidavit-evidence of her own and documents are similar to the documents relied by the complainant in C.C.No. 79/10 and 80/10, opposites have also relied on similar affidavit-evidences and documents in both the cases, apart from this the complainant has also moved an application on 01-02-11 in CC.No. 79/10 U/sec. 151 of CPC to club the matter, as such these two cases heard together and disposed of by them this common judgment. 4. The brief facts of the complainants case in 79/10 & in CC.No.80/10 are that, one Sangamma who is the wife of deceased Basaaraj Hiremath, who was the owner, possessor, and RC holder of Toofan vehicle bearing No. KA-36M-2960 and same was insured with the Respondents No. 1 Company under certificate cum policy schedule package policy No. 418005/31/10/001092 valid for the period from 22-07-09 to 21-07-10 on 22-07-09. The said late Basavaraj Hiremath, was died on 24-09-09 at about 6:00 pm in head and collusion accident with KSRTC Bus, bearing No. KA-36/F-1587 while driving his Toofan vehicle on Chanarayana Pattana-Holenarasipura Road, Near Nooranakki, Gate, Dandigana halli Circle. His vehicle was also badly damaged. The police of Chanarayana Pattana have registered a case in Crime No. 179/09 for the offence U/sec. 279, 338 and 304 A of IPC. The deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, insured his life during his lifetime with the Respondent Insurance Company and in this regard Rs. 100/- is deducting as a GR 36 A for owner cum driver in the said premium. Hence, he is entitled for a compensation under the driver clause to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards sum assured under the policy for his life. Similarly in CC.No. 80/10 she has sought the compensation amount of Rs. 6,90, 000/- towards the damage of the vehicle under the same policy and other reliefs, such as transportation charges, rent of the showroom, estimation repair charges and mental shock and agony. The complainant has requested opposites to grant compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards sum assured under the policy as claimed in CC No. 79/10 and compensation towards the damage of the vehicle etc., as claimed in CC.No.80/10 but they shown their negligence in awarding compensation amount, even inspite of legal notice dt. 01-04-10 hence these complaints were filed by the complainant for the reliefs as prayed in her complaints. 5. Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in both the cases appeared through their counsel and filed their written version. The opposite No.1 & 2 filed their written version. According to opposites, complainant in C.C. No. 79/10 and complainant in C.C. No. 80/10 are not the consumers of opposites 1 to 3 and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of C.P. Act. The complaints are exclusively tribal by a Civil Court. Hence claim arising under these complaints are not maintainable. Further it is contended that, the complainant had deliberately not given any information to the Insurance Company about the accident and had also not submitted any documents about the accident. As per the terms and conditions of the policy and practice and procedure the complainant has to lodge her complaint immediately but there was no any complaint hence it is total breach of the policy condition. The Respondents Insurance Company has requested the complainant to produce the documents to settle the claim but the complainant has not produced any documents. This attitude of the complainant clearly goes to show that, the complainant is not interested in claim, hence she is not entitled for any reliefs Further it is also contended that, immediately after the receipt of the information the Respondent appointed a spot surveyor by name Sri. K.V. Sateesh but the surveyor reported that, the vehicle was removed from the accident spot and he made best efforts to receive the documents from the complainant but not received. On 12-11-09 and on 16-11-09 the letter was also given to the complainant to sent the documents i.e, RC with FC, licence of the driver who was drove at the time of accident, name and address of the repairers and their estimate of repairs and signed claim form and FIR. Apart from that, the surveyor has also requested through telephonic calls, but the representatives of insured have not shown any interest towards the claim. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has taken as no claim. It is also contended in both the cases that, the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation. Hence it was prayed by them in both the cases to dismiss the complainant among other grounds. 6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant in C.C. No. 79/10 & in CC.No. 80/10 proves that, the Respondents have shown their negligence and thereby all found guilty under deficiency in their services as alleged. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her both the complaints. 4. What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) In the affirmative. (3) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1. In C.C. No. 79/10 & in C.C. No. 80/10:- 8. To prove the case of complainants in C.C. No. 79/10, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Shivananda R.S. Legal Officer, of opposites was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 9. In C.C.No. 80/10, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand affidavit- evidence of Shivananda R.S. legal Officer of opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 10. In the light of the pleadings of the parties in both the cases their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, some of the following material points required to be appreciated in these two cases:- (1) Whether these two complaints are not involved the consumer disputes and they are not fallen within the ambit of the provisions of C.P. Act and the definitions of complainant, complaint, consumer disputes as defined in section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and that from the afore said definitions the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer disputes. 2) Whether the complainant has immediately informed the Insurance Company about the accident and whether she has lodged any claim before the Respondents and whether she has submitted all the relevant documents to the Respondents in order to settle the claim by the Respondents. 3) Whether the present complaints are within the period of limitation. 11. In order to consider the Point No-1, first we have to decide whether the complainant is a consumer to the opposite party are not, in this regard section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act is very clear that, in case of death of a consumer his legal heir or representatives are the consumers. Under the present case, the complainant is a legally wedded wife of deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, and she being a legal heir, she is nothing but a consumer to the Respondent Insurance as her husband was the insurer with the company. This fact was not disputed by the Respondents. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, the complainant is not a consumer. Regarding the consumer dispute is concerned, when the complainant she being a consumer to the Respondent Insurance Company she claimed relief under the policy of her husband and the Insurance Company/Respondents refusing it for the reasons mentioned under the written statement itself is a consumer dispute. Under such circumstances, the say of the Respondents regarding the consumer and consumer disputes cannot be accepted. 12. The complainant in the present cases has rightly raised her objections regarding the non settlement of the claim of her deceased husband who has got insured his life and vehicle with the Respondent Insurance Company. This dispute cannot be termed as a civil dispute and it cannot be accepted that, the such dispute can be tribal by Civil Court. The complainant has rightly approached this Forum to resolve her problem with the Respondents hence the contention of the Respondents regarding jurisdiction and consumer and consumer dispute is concerned is hereby rejected. 13. The second point is concerned, there is no any piece of document to show that, the complainant has informed to the Insurance Company about the accident and about lodging of any claim before the Respondents. However the letter dt. 12-11-09 marked at Ex.R-1 written by surveyor (to the complainant) in the name of deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, is clearly goes to show that, there was information about the accident by the complainant to the Respondents. Further this letter is also clearly goes to show that, the claim is registered under the claim No. 10000/31/10/C/006385/81 by the Respondents. This Ex.R-1 submitted in CC No. 80/10 is the document submitted by the Respondent Insurance Company, it is their own document. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, there was no information or claim by the complainant in respect of the claim under these cases. Regarding submission of relevant documents is concerned, the legal notice dt. 01-04-10 produced under Ex.P-8 in CC.No. 79/10 and CC.No. 80/10 is clearly goes to show that, the documents which are required by the Insurance Company are already submitted. This was clearly stated in the said notice in Para-4 the said notice was also served upon the Respondent on 03-04-10. If at all the said contention was not correct then, nothing was prevented to the Respondents to deny the same through reply notice. But we do not find any such denial to the contention of the legal notice. Hence say of the Respondent in this regard holds no good. The Respondent Insurance Company neither they have denied about the policy of the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, in respect of the vehicle in question and his death in the alleged accident. Further it is also not in dispute that, the vehicle was damaged in the said accident and same is to be repaired by spending money. Only for the non production of the documents rejection of the claim will not give any natural justice to the insurer/deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, or the complainant of both the cases. Under such circumstances rejection of the claim by the Respondents is nothing but just to harass the complainant. 14. The third point is concerned, as per the police records i.e, FIR and other documents marked under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4(1) the accident took place on 24-09-09 and it is also appears that, the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath was died on the same day in the alleged accident. As per Ex.R-1 letter dt. 12-11-09 written by surveyor to the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, it is very clear that, the claim of the complainant has been made before the Insurance Company earlier to 11-12-09 it means the submissions of the claim before the Insurance Company is within two months from the date of occurrence of the incident. Apart from that, the complainant filed her complaint before this Forum on 08-10-10 from this it is very clear that, the complaint before this Forum is also well within the period of two years. Under such circumstances, the defence taken by the Respondent Insurance Company regarding period of limitation holds no good. Hence we have considered the claim of the complainant and two complaints filed by the complainant are well within the period of limitation. So we answered Point No-1 as in affirmative. POINT NO.2.:- 15. In CC No. 79/10:- The complainant in the complaint No. 79/10 she has claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. towards sum assured under the policy and mental shock and agony etc., as the policy was a package policy. On perusal of the policy in question produced at Ex.P-7 under the head of limit of liability discloses that, the insured is entitled to claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the personal accident coverage for owner-driver. Here in this case, the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, is the owner and driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, hence the complainant she being a legally wedded wife of the complainant she is entitled to receive only to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Respondents under the head of personal accident coverage along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. 16. In CC No. 80/10:- The complainant in this case, she has claimed Rs. 6,90,000/- towards repair charges of the damaged vehicle, transportation charges, rent of the show room, mental shock and agony and damages on account of deficiency in service. In support of her claim the complainant has produced only a estimate at Ex.P-12 for an amount of Rs. 2,57,881/-. Apart from that, there was no other documents are produced to show that, she has spent for transportation, rent of the show room etc., The Respondents Insurance Company though they have taken the contention regarding the appointment of surveyor and to assess the loss but in any one of these two complaints neither the survey report is submitted nor affidavit of the surveyor has been filed by the Respondents. Under such circumstances, the claim made by the complainant regarding damages of the vehicle is concerned, under the estimate cannot be rejected. Hence we have considered the claim of the complainant and awarded Rs. lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards repair charges of the vehicle and Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of the vehicle from the spot to Hubli Garage. In all we have awarded Rs. 1,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. 17. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in each cases complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation in each case. POINT NO.3:- 18. In C.C. No. 79/10 & 80/10 in view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 79/10 & in CC.No. 80/10 is partly allowed with cost. In CC.No. 79/10 The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 2,06,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. In CC.No. 80/10 The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. The complainant is hereby directed to submit all the relevant documents like RC, licence of the driver, estimate copy of the repairs, duly signed claim form, copy of FIR within (15) days from the date of judgment. Opposites 1 to 3 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to the complainant in both the cases after accepting the above said documents from the complainant. Keep the copy of this judgment in C.C. No. 80/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-02-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- C.C.No. 79/10 is filed by Smt. Sangamma, against the opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 80/10 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000 with 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization of the full amount and to award cost. 2. C.C.No. 80/10 is filed by Smt. Sangamma, against the opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 79/10 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 6,900,000/- with 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization of the full amount and to award cost, U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 3. These two complaints arising out of same facts in same place opposites 1 to 3 in both the cases are one and the same who are the concerned officers of Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Sitapur-Jaipur, Rajasthan, Bangalore and Raichur. The complainant has relied on the affidavit-evidence of her own and documents are similar to the documents relied by the complainant in C.C.No. 79/10 and 80/10, opposites have also relied on similar affidavit-evidences and documents in both the cases, apart from this the complainant has also moved an application on 01-02-11 in CC.No. 79/10 U/sec. 151 of CPC to club the matter, as such these two cases heard together and disposed of by them this common judgment. 4. The brief facts of the complainants case in 79/10 & in CC.No.80/10 are that, one Sangamma who is the wife of deceased Basaaraj Hiremath, who was the owner, possessor, and RC holder of Toofan vehicle bearing No. KA-36M-2960 and same was insured with the Respondents No. 1 Company under certificate cum policy schedule package policy No. 418005/31/10/001092 valid for the period from 22-07-09 to 21-07-10 on 22-07-09. The said late Basavaraj Hiremath, was died on 24-09-09 at about 6:00 pm in head and collusion accident with KSRTC Bus, bearing No. KA-36/F-1587 while driving his Toofan vehicle on Chanarayana Pattana-Holenarasipura Road, Near Nooranakki, Gate, Dandigana halli Circle. His vehicle was also badly damaged. The police of Chanarayana Pattana have registered a case in Crime No. 179/09 for the offence U/sec. 279, 338 and 304 A of IPC. The deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, insured his life during his lifetime with the Respondent Insurance Company and in this regard Rs. 100/- is deducting as a GR 36 A for owner cum driver in the said premium. Hence, he is entitled for a compensation under the driver clause to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards sum assured under the policy for his life. Similarly in CC.No. 80/10 she has sought the compensation amount of Rs. 6,90, 000/- towards the damage of the vehicle under the same policy and other reliefs, such as transportation charges, rent of the showroom, estimation repair charges and mental shock and agony. The complainant has requested opposites to grant compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards sum assured under the policy as claimed in CC No. 79/10 and compensation towards the damage of the vehicle etc., as claimed in CC.No.80/10 but they shown their negligence in awarding compensation amount, even inspite of legal notice dt. 01-04-10 hence these complaints were filed by the complainant for the reliefs as prayed in her complaints. 5. Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 in both the cases appeared through their counsel and filed their written version. The opposite No.1 & 2 filed their written version. According to opposites, complainant in C.C. No. 79/10 and complainant in C.C. No. 80/10 are not the consumers of opposites 1 to 3 and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of C.P. Act. The complaints are exclusively tribal by a Civil Court. Hence claim arising under these complaints are not maintainable. Further it is contended that, the complainant had deliberately not given any information to the Insurance Company about the accident and had also not submitted any documents about the accident. As per the terms and conditions of the policy and practice and procedure the complainant has to lodge her complaint immediately but there was no any complaint hence it is total breach of the policy condition. The Respondents Insurance Company has requested the complainant to produce the documents to settle the claim but the complainant has not produced any documents. This attitude of the complainant clearly goes to show that, the complainant is not interested in claim, hence she is not entitled for any reliefs Further it is also contended that, immediately after the receipt of the information the Respondent appointed a spot surveyor by name Sri. K.V. Sateesh but the surveyor reported that, the vehicle was removed from the accident spot and he made best efforts to receive the documents from the complainant but not received. On 12-11-09 and on 16-11-09 the letter was also given to the complainant to sent the documents i.e, RC with FC, licence of the driver who was drove at the time of accident, name and address of the repairers and their estimate of repairs and signed claim form and FIR. Apart from that, the surveyor has also requested through telephonic calls, but the representatives of insured have not shown any interest towards the claim. Therefore, the claim of the complainant has taken as no claim. It is also contended in both the cases that, the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation. Hence it was prayed by them in both the cases to dismiss the complainant among other grounds. 6. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant in C.C. No. 79/10 & in CC.No. 80/10 proves that, the Respondents have shown their negligence and thereby all found guilty under deficiency in their services as alleged. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her both the complaints. 4. What order? 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) In the affirmative. (3) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1. In C.C. No. 79/10 & in C.C. No. 80/10:- 8. To prove the case of complainants in C.C. No. 79/10, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-13 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Shivananda R.S. Legal Officer, of opposites was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 9. In C.C.No. 80/10, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand affidavit- evidence of Shivananda R.S. legal Officer of opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 10. In the light of the pleadings of the parties in both the cases their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, some of the following material points required to be appreciated in these two cases:- (1) Whether these two complaints are not involved the consumer disputes and they are not fallen within the ambit of the provisions of C.P. Act and the definitions of complainant, complaint, consumer disputes as defined in section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and that from the afore said definitions the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer disputes. 2) Whether the complainant has immediately informed the Insurance Company about the accident and whether she has lodged any claim before the Respondents and whether she has submitted all the relevant documents to the Respondents in order to settle the claim by the Respondents. 3) Whether the present complaints are within the period of limitation. 11. In order to consider the Point No-1, first we have to decide whether the complainant is a consumer to the opposite party are not, in this regard section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act is very clear that, in case of death of a consumer his legal heir or representatives are the consumers. Under the present case, the complainant is a legally wedded wife of deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, and she being a legal heir, she is nothing but a consumer to the Respondent Insurance as her husband was the insurer with the company. This fact was not disputed by the Respondents. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, the complainant is not a consumer. Regarding the consumer dispute is concerned, when the complainant she being a consumer to the Respondent Insurance Company she claimed relief under the policy of her husband and the Insurance Company/Respondents refusing it for the reasons mentioned under the written statement itself is a consumer dispute. Under such circumstances, the say of the Respondents regarding the consumer and consumer disputes cannot be accepted. 12. The complainant in the present cases has rightly raised her objections regarding the non settlement of the claim of her deceased husband who has got insured his life and vehicle with the Respondent Insurance Company. This dispute cannot be termed as a civil dispute and it cannot be accepted that, the such dispute can be tribal by Civil Court. The complainant has rightly approached this Forum to resolve her problem with the Respondents hence the contention of the Respondents regarding jurisdiction and consumer and consumer dispute is concerned is hereby rejected. 13. The second point is concerned, there is no any piece of document to show that, the complainant has informed to the Insurance Company about the accident and about lodging of any claim before the Respondents. However the letter dt. 12-11-09 marked at Ex.R-1 written by surveyor (to the complainant) in the name of deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, is clearly goes to show that, there was information about the accident by the complainant to the Respondents. Further this letter is also clearly goes to show that, the claim is registered under the claim No. 10000/31/10/C/006385/81 by the Respondents. This Ex.R-1 submitted in CC No. 80/10 is the document submitted by the Respondent Insurance Company, it is their own document. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, there was no information or claim by the complainant in respect of the claim under these cases. Regarding submission of relevant documents is concerned, the legal notice dt. 01-04-10 produced under Ex.P-8 in CC.No. 79/10 and CC.No. 80/10 is clearly goes to show that, the documents which are required by the Insurance Company are already submitted. This was clearly stated in the said notice in Para-4 the said notice was also served upon the Respondent on 03-04-10. If at all the said contention was not correct then, nothing was prevented to the Respondents to deny the same through reply notice. But we do not find any such denial to the contention of the legal notice. Hence say of the Respondent in this regard holds no good. The Respondent Insurance Company neither they have denied about the policy of the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, in respect of the vehicle in question and his death in the alleged accident. Further it is also not in dispute that, the vehicle was damaged in the said accident and same is to be repaired by spending money. Only for the non production of the documents rejection of the claim will not give any natural justice to the insurer/deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, or the complainant of both the cases. Under such circumstances rejection of the claim by the Respondents is nothing but just to harass the complainant. 14. The third point is concerned, as per the police records i.e, FIR and other documents marked under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4(1) the accident took place on 24-09-09 and it is also appears that, the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath was died on the same day in the alleged accident. As per Ex.R-1 letter dt. 12-11-09 written by surveyor to the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, it is very clear that, the claim of the complainant has been made before the Insurance Company earlier to 11-12-09 it means the submissions of the claim before the Insurance Company is within two months from the date of occurrence of the incident. Apart from that, the complainant filed her complaint before this Forum on 08-10-10 from this it is very clear that, the complaint before this Forum is also well within the period of two years. Under such circumstances, the defence taken by the Respondent Insurance Company regarding period of limitation holds no good. Hence we have considered the claim of the complainant and two complaints filed by the complainant are well within the period of limitation. So we answered Point No-1 as in affirmative. POINT NO.2.:- 15. In CC No. 79/10:- The complainant in the complaint No. 79/10 she has claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. towards sum assured under the policy and mental shock and agony etc., as the policy was a package policy. On perusal of the policy in question produced at Ex.P-7 under the head of limit of liability discloses that, the insured is entitled to claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the personal accident coverage for owner-driver. Here in this case, the deceased Basavaraj Hiremath, is the owner and driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, hence the complainant she being a legally wedded wife of the complainant she is entitled to receive only to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Respondents under the head of personal accident coverage along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. 16. In CC No. 80/10:- The complainant in this case, she has claimed Rs. 6,90,000/- towards repair charges of the damaged vehicle, transportation charges, rent of the show room, mental shock and agony and damages on account of deficiency in service. In support of her claim the complainant has produced only a estimate at Ex.P-12 for an amount of Rs. 2,57,881/-. Apart from that, there was no other documents are produced to show that, she has spent for transportation, rent of the show room etc., The Respondents Insurance Company though they have taken the contention regarding the appointment of surveyor and to assess the loss but in any one of these two complaints neither the survey report is submitted nor affidavit of the surveyor has been filed by the Respondents. Under such circumstances, the claim made by the complainant regarding damages of the vehicle is concerned, under the estimate cannot be rejected. Hence we have considered the claim of the complainant and awarded Rs. lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards repair charges of the vehicle and Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation of the vehicle from the spot to Hubli Garage. In all we have awarded Rs. 1,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. 17. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in each cases complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation in each case. POINT NO.3:- 18. In C.C. No. 79/10 & 80/10 in view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 79/10 & in CC.No. 80/10 is partly allowed with cost. In CC.No. 79/10 The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 2,06,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. In CC.No. 80/10 The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 1,61,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01-04-10 till realization. The complainant is hereby directed to submit all the relevant documents like RC, licence of the driver, estimate copy of the repairs, duly signed claim form, copy of FIR within (15) days from the date of judgment. Opposites 1 to 3 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment to the complainant in both the cases after accepting the above said documents from the complainant. Keep the copy of this judgment in C.C. No. 80/10. Intimate the parties accordingly. Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-02-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.