BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1008/2018
Smt. Nagamma, w/o Late Fakeerappa Gorebal. Age:38 years, Occ:House-hold work, R/o Hanaval, Tal:Gangavathi, Dist:Koppal. (By Sri M.K Lokesh, Advocate) | …Appellant/s |
V/s
The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hosalli Road, Gangavathi, Dist:Koppal. | …Respondent/s |
O R D E R
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal against the dismissal order dt.27.03.2018 passed in CC.No.66/2017 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Koppal, which dismissed the complaint and submits that he had filed a complaint before District Commission alleging a deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards Policy No.631650851 and another Policy No.637753805. But the District Commission without considering the allegations and affidavit has dismissed the complaint. In fact the complainant had received an assured amount from OPs towards the four policies after filing the complaint before the District Commission Vide No.59/2016. But the OPs have not settled the claim under above said two policies for which they have issued the legal notice and called upon to settle the claim. But the OPs neither reply nor settled the claim. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before District Commission alleging deficiency in service but, the District Commission not appreciated the evidence and documents produced by complainant and dismissed the complaint without any valid reasons. The complainant is entitled to get policy benefits along with assured amount being a beneficiary of the policy. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and directed the OPs to settle the claim under the two policies.
2. Heard from both Appellant and Respondent.
3. On perusal of the certified copies of the order, memorandum of appeal and documents filed by Respondent it is noticed that the OPs have settled the claim under Policy No.661789084, 661789085, 661789086 and 661789087 upon the complaint filed by complainant CC.No.59/2016. Subsequently, another complaint filed CC.No.66/2017 before Koppal District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim under two policies i.e., Policy No.631650851 dated 28.04.2008 and another Policy No.637753805 dated 08.03.2007. Whereas, the District Commission after trial, dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint fail to establish deficiency on the part of OP.
4. During the course of trial, before this Commission the learned Advocate for Respondent submits that after the claim made by the complainant under the above said two policies they have paid the eligible amount to the complainant through RTGS. But, the complainant suppressed the said facts before District Commission and falsely alleged a deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. On perusal of the Ex A-10, A-11 and A-12 it is clear that the amounts were paid through RTGS under the above said two policies. The Respondent had paid the eligible amount to the complainant. The complainant once again can’t allege deficiency in service and claim for the payment of the assured amount under the Policy. The District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service. The complainant fails to establish that he had not received any amount from the above said two policies. In absence of such the appeal is not justifiable. Accordingly we proceed the following:
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar)
Member Judicial Member
SP*
