This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainants Smt. Gangamma W/o. Siddalingayya Swamy (2) Sri. Vishwanatha S/o. Late Siddalingayya Swamy against the Respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager Raichur, for deficiency of service and awarding compensation. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: Complainants are the Mother and Brother of deceased Rudra Swamy S/o. Siddalingayya Swamy who is the policyholder of vehicle bearing its Registration No. KA-36 /Q 7729 which also covers the personal accident. On 15-04-07 in the morning late Rudra Swamy along with one Rajashekharayya @ Shekharayya Swamy were proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing No. KA 36/Q 7729. When they were so proceedings within in the limits of Kallur at about 11-00 a.m. at that time some cattle came in front of their vehicle and to avoid them deceased Rudra Swamy the rider of the motor cycle lost his control over the vehicle and dashed to a stone guard. Due to which impact Rudra Swamy sustained severe multiple injuries over his body. Rajashekharayya @ Shekarayya Swamy the pillian rider also sustained injuries. During the course of treatment Late Rudraswamy died in OPEC Hospital, Raichur. The complainants being the only legal heir of deceased Rudraswamy approached Respondent and as per the direction of Respondent the complainants have filled-up the claim form with necessary particulars along with copy of Insurance Policy. After receiving the claim form the Respondent kept quiet for settlement of death claim. In-spite of personal approach and service of legal notice on 30-10-07 the Respondent has not shown any courtesy to reply or settle the claim. Hence for all these reasons the complainants have sought for direction to the Respondent to settle the death claim and medi claim and for awarding compensation of Rs. One Lakh for deficiency of service by the Respondent with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of incident till realization. 2. In-response to service of notice, Respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd., appeared and filed the written version as under: The allegation of vehicle accident are false and created. In-fact on the date of accident the deceased was not driving the vehicle and was not having driving licence to drive the Motor Cycle in-question. On the basis of violation of policy conditions, this Respondent is not liable to the claim. This Respondent not issued any letter or any information as contended. This Respondent has not received single letter from the complainant and not approached to this Respondent. Hence there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of this Respondent. After the accident nothing has been informed to the Respondent Company regarding policy nor the accident. In the absence of the material information there is no deficiency of service by this Respondent. The complainant be directed to give undertaking regarding any claim made either before MACT/WC Court or any other competent Forum for claiming compensation arising out of the accident. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent Insurance Company has sought for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant No-1 Smt. Gangamma has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal the senior Branch Manager of Respondent Insurance Company has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. On behalf of complainant as many as (56) documents are got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-56. In-rebuttal the Respondent has got one document at Ex.R-1. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainants proves deficiency in service by the Respondent, as alleged. 2.Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought for. 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 6. There is no dispute that the Motor Cycle vehicle in-question is insured with Respondent Insurance Company the Respondent Insurance Company has produced certified copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle at Ex.R-1. This policy among other things shows that the late Rudraswamy being the RC holder of the vehicle has insured Motor Cycle in-question with Respondent Company which was valid from 07-12-06 to 06-12-07. The policy also shows the limit of the amount of Respondent Companys liability under section II-I(i) in-respect of any one accident as per M.V. Act 1988. Limit of the amount of the companys liability U/s. II-I(1) (ii) in-respect of any claim or series of claims arising out of one event upto Rs. One Lakh. As seen in the written version, the Respondent Company have denied the vehicle accident itself and further contended that the rider of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The complainant has produced in all (56) documents out of which Ex.P-1 is FIR with police complaint, Ex.P-2 is Spot Panchanama, Ex.P-3 is M.V.I. Report, Ex.P-4 is Post Mortem Report, Ex.P-5 is Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P-6 is Charge sheet, Ex.P-7 is Police Statement of Gangamma i.e, complainant No-1, Ex.P-13 is Original driving licence & Ex.P-55 is Certified Copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle are material. The Police papers at Ex.P-1 to P-7 as referred to above amply go to show that on 15-04-07 at about 9-00 a.m. the complaint Rajashekharayya along with his nephew late Rudraswamy were going to Kalmala on Hero Honda Motor Cycle No. KA-36 Q 7729. Late Rudraswamy was riding the motor cycle and Rajashekharayya @ Shekharayya Swamy was a pillian rider. When they were proceeding on Manvi-Raichur Road near Kallur Sittamanahalla (stream) at that time due to rash and negligent driving by the rider, the vehicle dashed to the guard stone, due to this impact late Rudraswamy sustained severe injuries and he was admitted in the OPEC Hospital where he died while taking treatment. The spot panchanama Ex.P-2 shows the place of accident and the involvement of the vehicle in-question. The police papers also show that a case was booked against late Rudraswamy the rider of motor cycle in-question for offences U/s. 279,338 & 304(A) of IPC. Post Mortem Report shows the death of deceased Rudraswamy due to injuries sustained in the accident. Ex.P-13 the driving licence of late Rudraswamy Ex.P-55 the Certified Copy of R.C. Book show that late Rudraswamy was holder of D.L. and RC of the motor cycle in-question. So from a close perusal of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-55 it amply shows that late Rudraswamy was the RC Holder of the vehicle and he was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in-question and it also shows the death of late Rudraswamy while driving the motor cycle on Manvi- Raichur Road near Sittamanahalla at Kallur village. Under these circumstances the contention of the Respondent Company that no accident has taken place and the rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence etc., does not hold any water. Admittedly the motor cycle in-question was insured with the Respondent Insurance Company by the RC Holder late Rudraswamy vide Insurance Policy produced at Ex.R-1. 7. The present complaint is with regard to the death of Rudraswamy being the policyholder of the motor cycle in-question. As discussed above the late Rudraswamy was having valid driving licence vide Ex.P-13 & he was RC Holder of motor cycle vide Ex.P-55. The certified copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle produced by the Respondent at Ex.R-1 go to show the liability of the Respondent Company to Rs. One Lakh. If all these factors are taken into account in the light of correspondence made by the complainant-Gangamma with Respondent vide Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 for settlement of accidental claim, then the non-settlement of the claim by the Respondent Insurance Company, clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Company. Hence we hold that the complainants have proved deficiency in service by the Respondent and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 8. The complainants have sought for direction to the Respondent Insurance Company to settle the death claim of Rudra Swamy and medical expenses of Rs. One Lakh and in-addition a sum of Rs. One Lakh as compensation for the deficiency of service. As discussed in Point NO-1, the Insurance Policy of vehicle at Ex.R-1 shows the liability of the Respondent Company to Rupees one Lakh only. Under these circumstances the complainants are entitled to Rs. One Lakh only. Consequently the complainants are not entitled to the medical expenses of Rs. One Lakh as sought for. The complainants have also sought for compensation of Rs. One Lakh for deficiency in service by the Respondent and interest at 18% p.a. from the date of accident till realization. This shows that complainants have claimed interest together with compensation of Rs. One Lakh. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of above discussion, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- including cost of litigation. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainants is partly allowed. The Respondent Insurance Company shall pay Rs. One Lakh being the policy amount to the complainants along with a global compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. The Respondent shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 11-09-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
