Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint presented by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that in order to cover medical expenses for accident, mishaps etc., to visitors it had taken a Public Liability Insurance Policy from the Opposite party on 09.03.2006 to cover the risk of the visitors etc., for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by paying premiums. That on 14.08.2006 when one Smt. Shamala and Miss. Sahithya visited the zoo were injured while a battery operated vehicle was on road, they were taken to hospital were inpatients from 14.08.2006 till 01.08.2006 and it incurred expenditure of Rs.96,394.97. Again on 01.09.2006, when one Sri Amogh visited the zoo and at Rhino Enclosure he had a Snake-bite and that person was shifted to hospital and it had incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,495/-. That it has paid entire amounts of both the cases to the hospital concerned and sent the bills to the Opposite party on 20.06.2007 claiming the insurance amount, but the Opposite party failed to honour the claim, as such he got issued a legal notice on 15.03.2007 which was replied by the Opposite party with untenable grounds. The Opposite party is bound by the contact of insurance, but has failed to honour and thereby caused deficiency in it’s service and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.96,394.97 and Rs.50,495/- and also to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for his mental agony and inconvenience, to award Rs.1,00,000/- for having betrayed the trust reposed on it and to award cost of Rs.50,000/- as the cost of this Complaint. <br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed its version admitting the public insurance policy taken by the Complainant, has contended that the Complainant is running its institute on commercial basis. Therefore there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between them. It is further contended that the coverage is subject to the conditions stipulated in the policy, the Complainant did not intimate it immediately after the incident and no claim has been made by the injured against them. The Complainant did not produce necessary police documents, but has come up with this Complaint. It is further contended that though the injured have given undertaking that they do not make any claim in court of law, but it has no legal sanctity. Therefore in the event of the injured making a claim against them, it would be an additional burden on them and the payment has been made by the Complainant without its consent and therefore denying its liability has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry, the Complainant and Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing the contents of their respective Complaint and version. The Complainant has produced copies of certain documents. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. Though the Opposite party filed version contesting the claim of the Complainant with several objections, but the counsel representing the Opposite party in the course of arguments conceded to reimburse the Complainant about the medical expenditure, it has paid to the hospital as medical expenditure incurred for treating three public as claimed in the Complaint, but submitted to this Forum to award interest with reasonable rate on the amount due by exercising the legal discretion of this Forum. The learned counsel representing the Complainant also agreeing to the submission made by the counsel for the Opposite party submitted that the Opposite party since has agreed to settle the insurance claim also submitted to award a reasonable rate of interest on the amount due. With these, submissions of the counsel representing both the parties no dispute is left over to be adjudicated upon by this Forum except to use its just discretion for awarding interest and other reliefs claimed by the Complainant. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant is entitled for interest on the amounts due. If so at what rate?<br /> 2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- As could be found from the version and the affidavit evidence filed by the Opposite party it has conceded that the Complainant had taken a public insurance policy with it to meet the exigencies occurring to the public who visit the zoo, by paying necessary premiums and that insurance policy was effective as on the dates of the above incidents. But the Opposite party it is found despite receipt of the claim made by the Complainant has taken certain untenable contentions stating that the coverage is subject to the conditions of the policy which, no one can dispute, and that the Complainant had not informed it about the incidents and stated that injured have not made any claim with it and expressed its apprehension that the victims may make claim against it in any court of law and that may cause an additional burden on them. All these contentions raised by the Opposite party in our view are untenable. Because, the conditions do not contemplate immediate intimation to the Opposite party after happening of any incident of the type covered under the policy. There is no meaning in the contention of the Opposite party that the injured themselves have not made any claim with it and that victims may make a claim again in the court of law and that may cause an additional burden on them. This cannot happen because there is no privity of contract between the Opposite party and the victims, the contract is only between the Complainant and Opposite party in which the Complainant has entered into a contract with the Opposite party to compensate the public victims in the event of any eventuality happening in the zoo premises. Therefore, the victims can only proceed against the Complainant and not against the Opposite party, for such claims the Complainant is answerable and not the Opposite party. Therefore, with these untenable contentions the Opposite party has delayed in meeting its contractual obligation which our view has resulted in deficiency of their service, as such it castes a risk on the Opposite party to pay interest on the amounts due to the Complainant and cost of this litigation. As such, under these circumstances we hold that the Opposite party is liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the amounts due. With the result, we answer above points accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.96,394.97 and Rs.50,495/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order with interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.96,394.97 from 22.08.2006 and on Rs.50,495/- from 28.09.2006 till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite party is also directed to pay cost of this Complaint quantified at Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />