Date of Filing: 02-01-2014
Date of Disposal: 05-09-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Friday, the 5th day of September, 2014
C.C.NO.02/2014
Between:
- P.Hyder Bee W/o Late P.Rahamthulla
- P.Afrin D/o Late P.Rahamthulla
- P.Baba Althaf S/o Late P.Rahamthulla
Minor rep. by mother/P.Hyder Bee
All are residing at D.No.6-93-B,
O.D.Cheruvu Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainants
Vs.
The Manager,
Legal Claims,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.10003-E/8, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. …. Opposite party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Narasimha Reddy, Advocates for the complainants and Sri G.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards sum assured with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the insured, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also costs of the litigation.
2. The brief facts of the case are that :- The 1st complainant is wife and 2nd and 3rd complainants are children of the deceased P.Rahamthulla S/o Khasim Sab of O.D.Cheruvu Village. The said Rahamthulla was the registered owner of TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-02-R-5171. The said vehicle was insured by the opposite party under policy No.10003/31/12/324840 covering the period from 19-09-2011 to 18-09-2012. As per the premium schedule of the policy, the opposite party has collected the premium of Rs.100/- towards personal accident benefit for the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle covering the risk of insurance amount for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of accidental death.
3. On 11-08-2012 at about 3.00 A.M. the deceased P.Rahamthulla being the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle was proceeding from Kadiri to Ananthapuramu and when the vehicle reached near Pangal Road on the outskirts of Ananthapuramu Town hit a stationed lorry . The driver-cum-owner Rahamthulla was severely injured and he was shifted to hospital and he died in Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool while undergoing treatment on the next day i.e. 12-08-2012. The complainants have made a claim to the opposite party for payment of the insurance amount under personal accident clause as he was driver-cum-owner of the said vehicle. Later they got issued a legal notice on 29-04-2013 as the opposite party has not settled the claim. The opposite party is under contractual obligation to pay the insurance amount has neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice of the complainants and thereby committed deficiency of service. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party claiming the above reliefs.
4. The opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The opposite party denies all the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party submits that the complaint is premature one as the complainants without sending the criminal case records including the DL of the deceased had approached the Forum directly without giving any opportunity to the opposite party to verify the genuineness of the documents and to take decision to consider the claim of the complainant.
5. Further the opposite party submits that the liability against the opposite party is purely governed by the terms and conditions of the policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answered in the said proposal, shall be condition precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under the policy of insurance, if at all issued by the opposite party or subject to sections 145(b) & (d), 146, 147, 149 of M.V. Act and section 64 VB of the Insurance Act.
6. Further the opposite party submits that they are not aware of the accident, involvement of the said vehicle and the death of the deceased etc., facts as averred in the complaint. Further submits that the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands and they have suppressed true and material facts of the case. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further the opposite party submits that the definition of the “ complainant”, “ complainant “ “Consumer Disputes “ and “ service “ as defined under section 2(1) of the said Act do not cover the claim arising under the present dispute and that from the definitions, the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. The opposite party further submits that the claim is barred by limitation as the opposite party is not aware of the accident occurred on 11-08-2012 to till date. The complainants in order to make any claim with the opposite party, they have to submit the criminal case records and the vehicle particulars of the insured vehicle to look into their claim and it is the duty of the complainants to lodge claim before the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party within stipulated time from the date of occurrence of the accident along-with criminal case records of the insured vehicle but the complainants never made any claim with the opposite party. Hence, the claim need not be looked into as it is a time barred claim.
7. Further the opposite party submits that they have not received any letter from the complainant nor from the counsel so far and no documents such as criminal case records, D.L. and other particulars have not been sent to the insurance company atleast to register the claim. It is only after receipt of summons from the Hon’ble Forum the opposite party came to know that the said accident has happened. Further the opposite party submits that insurance is a contract of indemnity and it has to be viewed as a normal contract. Any violation of the insurance contract by the parties to the contract becomes void and in such event the insurance company is not liable to answer to the complainants. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
9. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the 2nd complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on behalf of the complainants and marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
10. Heard on both sides.
11. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainants submitted that P.Rahamthulla S/o Khasim Sab of O.D.Cheruvu was the owner of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-02-R-5171. The said Rahamthulla had insured his vehicle with the opposite party vide policy No.10003/31/12/324840 covering the period from 19-09-2011 to 18-09-2012. As per the premium schedule of the policy, the opposite party has collected the premium of Rs.100/- towards personal accident benefit for the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle covering the risk to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of accidental death.
12. The counsel for the complainants submitted that on 11-08-2012 at about 3.00 A.M. the said Rahamthulla was proceeding from Kadiri to Ananthapuramu , when the vehicle reached near Pangal Road on the outskirts of Ananthapuramu Town, he hit the stationed lorry and he was severely injured in the said accident. Then the said Rahamthulla was taken to Government Hospital, Kurnool and he died while undergoing treatment on the next day i.e. 12-08-2012. The complainants herein are the wife and children of the deceased P.Rahamthulla. The 1st complainant is wife and also guardian of the 3rd complainant. The counsel for the complainants submitted that subsequently the complainants have made a claim to the opposite party for payment of the insurance amount and they also got issued a legal notice on 29-04-2013, but the opposite party has not settled the claim.
13. The counsel for the complainants argued that the opposite party is under contractual obligation to pay the sum assured under the policy as the 1st complainant’s husband was the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident and as the opposite party neither settled the claim nor replied to the notice of the complainants, which shows their negligence. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/.- towards the sum assured under the policy along-with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the insured P.Rahamthulla and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and other expenses.
14. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that all the allegations made in the complaint are false and it is a premature case filed by the complainants. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party was not aware of the accident of the said vehicle and the complainant has never informed about the accident. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that for the first time the opposite party came to know about the accident only after receiving the summons from the Hon’ble Forum. The counsel for the opposite party argued that as the complainants have not informed the opposite party about the accident within the stipulated period of one month as per the terms and conditions of the policy and not even made a claim so far along-with necessary documents like vehicle particulars along-with D.L. and police case records, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that it is the duty of the complainants to inform the opposite party with regard to the accident within the stipulated period and submit the necessary documents along-with claim forms for settling the claim. As the complainants never informed the opposite party nor made claim along-with necessary records, the question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party does not arise. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further argued that as the complainants have not informed about the accident within the stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant as the claim is barred by limitation. Further the counsel for the opposite party argued that as the complainants have not made any claim to the opposite party and suppressed the said fact and came to the Forum with unclean hands. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no consumer dispute between the complainants and the opposite party.
15. After hearing arguments of both sides and perusing the documents submitted by the complainants, there is no dispute with regard to issuing of policy by the opposite party to the 1st complainant’s husband. As seen from the records, the complainant has not filed any documents to show that he has made a claim to the opposite party nor informed about the accident immediately after the accident and the complainant without informing the opposite party about the accident or making any claim to the opposite party with necessary records, how the opposite party knows that the said accident has happened on a given date. And it is the duty of the complainants to inform about the accident within a stipulated period as per the terms and conditions of the policy and make claim subsequently with necessary records. In the circumstances, the complainants have failed to show that they have made a claim to the opposite party after the accident with relevant records. Hence without giving a chance to the opposite party, the complainants have made a complaint in this Forum under deficiency of service by the opposite party. This clearly shows that the complainants have not made any efforts to make a claim with the opposite party and filed this complaint without giving an opportunity to the opposite party to settle the claim or repudiate. Hence, we are of the view that there is no consumer dispute in the present case. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 5th of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Attested copy of Certificate of Registration relating to deceased P.Rahamthulla
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Certificate –cum-policy schedule relating to deceased
P.Rahamthulla.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.69/2012 of Raptadu P.S.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Inquest report relating to deceased P.Rahamthulla.
Ex.A5 - Photo copy of Forensic Medicine Department issued by Kurnool Medical
College, Kurnool dt.12-08-2012.
Ex.A6 – Office copy of legal notice dt.29-04-2013 got issued by the complainants to the
Opposite party.
Ex.A7 – Letter dt.22-05-2014 sent by the Public Information Officer, Hindupur to
the counsel for the complaiannts.
Ex.A8 - Photo copy of accident report from Motor Vehicles Inspector.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
