Karnataka
Chitradurga
CC/63/2020
Smt.Susheela Bai.T W/o late Maruthi naik.T.R. - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Regional Manager,Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Co ltd., - Opp.Party(s)
Sri.K.R.Rangaswamy
24 Jul 2023
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.
CC.NO:63/2020
DATED: 24/07/2023
PRESENT: Kum. H.N. MEENA, B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT
Smt. B.H. YASHODA, B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER
……COMPLAINANT/S |
Smt. Susheela bai. T W/o Late Maruthi Naik. T.R., Aged about 50 Years, Household work, R/o Bheemanayakana Tanda, Handana Kere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Tq, Tumkur Dist.
(Rep. By Sri K.R.Rangaswamy, Advocate)
| |
V/S | ||
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S |
| |
:JUDGMENT:
Order Delivered by Hon’ble President, Kum. H.N. MEENA.
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for seeking the relief to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,00,000/- towards the mental shock and agony sustained by the complainant and Grant such other relief, as this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice.
2. The brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant submits that, she is the wife of one deceased Maruthi Naik D.R S/o Doddarama Naik. On 08-02-2020 at about
9-00 AM, deceased Maruthi Naik D.R was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-44 R-7465 near Matighatta Dodda Ennegere towards College, when he was fell down from his motor cycle resulting in a road traffic accident and sustained severe injuries. After the accident immediately, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Tiptur at about 9-35 A.M, while they were moving near Mathighatta Village, he succumbed death. Thereafter P.M was conducted at Govt. Hospital, Chikkanayakanahalli and handed over the body to the complainant. The complainant performed funeral and death ceremony of her husband by spending huge amount.
3. The Handanakere Police have registered a case in
Crime No.8/2020. At the time of accident, the said Maruthi Naik D.R S/o Dodda Rama Naik is having valid Driving License and obtained Insurance policy from opponent under policy No. 3361014997 19/000/00 for a period from 04-12-2019 to 03-12-2020, covering personal risk. As such the opponent is liable to pay proper compensation to the complainant.
4. After the accident, the complainant had approached the opponent and requested to pay proper compensation on account of death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident, but the opponent has not responded properly, to settle the claim of the complainant.
5. Complainant further submits that, the complainant has issued legal notice dated 30-6-2020 to the opponent through her counsel for claiming compensation amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with 24% interest per annum with court costs and expenses. After service of notice, the opponent neither replied the notice nor settled the claim of the complainant till today. Thereby the opponent has committed deficiency of service to the complainant as such the complainant has suffered a lot from physically and mentally. The complainant presently residing at stadium Road, Chitradurga and the opponent branch situated at Nehru Nagara, Chitradurga within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission has got Jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Hence filed this complaint.
6. This commission after registering this complaint ordered for issuance of notice to opponent, wherefore opponent have made their appearance, through their respective counsel and filed version.
7. The opponents stated in the version that the allegations of the complaint para No.1 to 6 which are not specifically admitted in this version are all hereby denied as false. The complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands as required under consumer protection Act and law of Insurance and also under policy issued by Opponent under M.V. Act for the following grounds, reasons and circumstances. Opponent Company has issued Motor two wheelers package policy to the Motor cycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-44 R-7465 through vide policy No.3361/01499719/000/00 for the period 04/12/2019 to 03/12/2019 in the name of one Murthy Nayak D.R S/o Dodda Rama Nayak and covering the risk of 3rd party injury and death unlimited, PA to owner cum driver for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- only and third party property damage is limited as per the act and the said policy covers IDV of he said vehicle for an amount of Rs.35,000/- and the policy will be in force subject to terms and conditions of the policy and confirmation of 64 VB and also terms and conditions of M.V. Act.
8. Opponent further submits that the opponent has not known that the complainant is the wife of deceased Maruthi Nayak T R and the opponent insurance company has not known that, the Maruthi Nayak has met with accident and he was died due to accidental injuries and the same has to be proved with documentary and oral evidence. That as per the norms and policy terms and conditions, that the legal representatives of the deceased insured has to give claim form, vehicular documents, death certificate, PM report, Inquest Panchanama and survival certificate of the deceased and also vehicle documents and also driving licence of the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident. That in this case the complainant has not at all produced any documents to the opponent till this date and also he has not approached the opponent insurance company along with documents for settling of the claim.
9. When the complainant has not approached the opponent for settling of the claim, it is not the duty of the opponent for settle the claim without any proper documents, hence at this stage the above said complaint is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed in limine since it is a pre-mature complaint and the same has to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
10. Opponent have submits brief facts of the case as follows;
- Opponent insurance company have received documents along with complaint like FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, inquest panchanama, PM report, IMV Report and also copy of charge sheet and also Xerox copy of the DL of Maruthi Naik D.R s/o Doddarama Naik and also Xerox copy of the policy. As per the Xerox copy of the DL produced by the complainant before this Hon’ble Court driving licence No.KA-06/20070008500 which was issued by RTO, Tiptur in favour of Maruthi Naik S/o Doddarama Naik and as per the said driving licence he was authorized to drive Motor cycle with gear from 24/06/2014 to 17/06/2019, but as per the alleged accident dated 08/02/2020 the driving licence of the deceased Maruthi Naik S/o Doddarama Naik has been lapsed prior to the date of alleged accident i.e. driving licence has been lapsed with 220 days i.e. DL has been expired prior 220 days from the date of alleged accident. Hence that the came insured Maruthi Naik S/o Doddarama Naik did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident, Hence, it is a violation of M.V Act conditions and policy terms and conditions, hence opponent insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the complainant.
- That the policy has been issued at Tumkur office and also the complainant is the resident of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and also accident has been occurred at Chikkanayakanahalli Circle, Tumkur District, this Hon’ble Court is not having any territorial jurisdiction to try the above complaint. Since, there is no any single part of transaction for to entertain the complaint before this Hon’ble Commission. Hence, prayed the Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the complaint against Opponent with exemplary costs.
11. The complainant got herself examined as PW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-13 and closed complainant side evidence.
12. The opponent have examined as DW-1 and the documents were got marked as Ex B-1 and closed the evidence on opponent side Complainant and opponent have filed their written Arguments, Arguments of Complainants and Opponent were heard.
13. On the assessment of the above facts, the following points arise for our consideration follows:
- Whether the complainant further proves any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed in the complaint?
- What order?
14. The findings of this commission on the Points for consideration are as follows:
- Point No.1: In the affirmative
- Point No.2: Partly In the affirmative
- Point No.3: As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
15. Point No.1 & 2: We have gone through the pleading of complaint and documents submitted by both the parties. It is clear case of the complaint that, she is claiming P.A. coverage of Insurance by the OP of her deceased husband.
16. In this case complainant submits that, the complainant is the wife of deceased Maruthi Naik.D.R. S/o Doddarama Naik On
08-02-2020 at about 9-00 AM, deceased Maruthi Naik D.R was proceeding in his Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-44 R-7465 near Matighatta, Dodda Ennegere towards College, when he was fell down from his motor cycle resulting in a road traffic accident and sustained severe injuries. After the accident immediately, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Tiptur at about 9-35 A.M, while they were moving near Mathighatta Village, he succumbed death. Thereafter P.M was conducted at Govt. Hospital, Chikkanayakanahalli
17. The Handanakere Police have registered a case in
Crime No.8/2020. The deceased Maruthi Naik D.R S/o Dodda Rama Naik is having valid Driving License and obtained Insurance policy from opponent under policy No. 3361/01499719/000/00 for a period from 04-12-2019 to 03-12-2020, covering personal risk for premium amount of Rs.325/- in this policy personal accident covers Rs.15,00,000/-
18. In the back ground of above said fact, we perused all the documents produced by both parties. The complainant side
documents are got marked as Exhibits A-1 to 13 that is policy copy, FIR, Spot Mahazar, Inquest report, Adhar Card of Maruthi Naik, and legal notice these documents are substantiate facts of the case, that is complainants husband avail the policy and accident took at the time driving the said vehicle and he died due to alleged accident finally Policy was existing at the time of accident and P.A. coverage of Rs.15,00,000/-
19. In the back ground of above said fact. We perused the documents of complainant that is FIR, Charge sheet, Complaint, Inquest Report, P.M. Report, Spot Panchanama, all these documents are got marked. FIR and Chargesheet and other documents reveal the truth that, above said accident caused injuries to the deceased person Sri Maruthi Naik.D.R., Due to the said accident deceased
Maruthi Naik.D.R.., was died at the spot due to accidental injuries. In this regard Handanakere Police have registered complaint in Crime
No. 08/2020. Further it is pertinent to note that, we carefully perused the FIR, Chargesheet, and inquest Report and statement of I.M.V. Report all are clearly reveals the truth that, the cause of death of deceased Maruthi Naik.D.R. Specifically Doctor Opinion on 20/02/2020 while conducting Post Mortem clearly said that, the cause of death of above said person is to injuries to vital organ like brain in severely. The Post Mortem finding are consistent with alleged history of death due to consequences of road accident. More over FIR and charge sheet and Inquest Report and I.M.V. Report are the significant documents these are public documents and having evidentiary value and also having statutory prominence, on those documents taken into consideration in believing the alleged accident. For that reason in the above said case insured person was eligible for P.A. coverage. In case of death of life assured his legal heirs are entitled for receiving the P.A. coverage.
20. The insurance company has taken the contention that, opponent insurance company received documents along with complaint like FIR, complaint spot Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar, Inquest Panchanama, P.M. Report, I.M.V. Report and also copy of chargesheet, Xerox copy of the D.L. of Maruthi Naik D.R. S/o Doddarama naik and also Xerox copy of the Policy. As per the Xerox copy of the D.L. produced by the complainant before this Hon’ble commission driving licence No.K.A-06/20070003500 which was issued by R.T.O Tipture in favour of Maruthi Naik S/o Doddaramanaik and as per the said driving licence he was authorized to drive Motor Cycle with gear from 24/06/2014 to 17/06/2019 but as per the alleged accident dated 08/02/2020 the driving licence of the deceased Maruthi Naik S/o Doddarama Naik has been lapsed prior to the date of alleged accident i.e., driving licence has been lapsed with 220 days i.e. D.L. has been expired prior 220 days from the date of alleged accident. Hence, that the insured Maruthi Naik S/o Doddarama Naik did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of alleged accident.
21. In this regard, we observed the Ex.A-13 it is very clearly reveal the truth that, deceased Maruthi Naik. D.R. has having valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident it is valid from 24/06/2014 to 17/06/2019. The driving licence has been lapsed with 220 days i.e., D.L. has been expired prior 220 days from the date of alleged accident. Opponent company has issued Motor two wheelers package Policy to the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-44 R-7465 through vide policy No. 3361/01499719/000/00 for a period from 04-12-2019 to 03-12-2020 in the name of Maruthi Naik S/o Dodda Rama Naik at the time of policy is in force and also at the time of taking insurance policy, driving licence is existing. The OP Company cannot repudiation on the untenable grounds, that the license has been expired on the date of accident. We are opinion that the complainant is eligible for P.A. claim and hence, the insurance company has liable to pay the P.A. claim.
We reply upon ruling 2009 (4) CPR 181, Himachal Pradesh State Consume Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla. (Salig Ram Sharma V/s The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,) where in it is held:
Where there was no nexus between cause of accident and non-renewal of driving licence of driver of vehicle, claim for damage to vehicle could not be repudiated on ground that licence of driver had expired on date of accident.
The above citation is applicable to present case.
22. The insurance company has taken an another contention that, the policy has been issued at Tumkur office and also the complainant is the resident of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and also accident has been occurred Chikkanayakanahalli Circle, Tumkur District this Hon’ble Court is not having any territorial jurisdiction to file the above complaint.
As per Consumer Protection Act , 2019 Section 34
34. Jurisdiction of District Commission (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration:
Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
23. As per CP Act 2019 this Hon’ble commission has got territorial Jurisdiction to file a complaint. It is pertinent to note that, on carefully perusal of the policy certified Nomine column says as nil. In this regard complainant has put the wedding card of deceased Maruthi Naik. D.R. marriage that is Ex.A-11 its shows that deceased Maruthi Naik has got married with T Sushilabai she is legally wedded wife of deceased Maruthi Naik on 30/05/2002, Ex-A-12 is Aadhar card of T Shishila bai it is clearly mentioned that, husband name is Maruthi Naik D.R. The above said documents are shows as genuine document, for that reasons complainant is entitled to receive the claim amount of Rs.15,00,000/- of P.A. Risk coverage and opponent company has hereby directed that issue the claim of the complainant P.A. coverage amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. The complainant has entitle to receive their the P.A. Coverage amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.
24. The complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complainant has entitled for Rs.15,00,000/- and claim for compensation for mental agony and cost of proceeding at Rs.5,000/- along with interest. Accordingly we answer the Point No.1 and 2 Partly in the affirmative.
25. Point No.3: Hence, in the light of above discussion we proceed to pass the following.
::ORDER::
- The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is partly allowed.
- The OP, shall pay the P.A. coverage amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of this order.
- The OP, shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of complaint and also pay for the physical and mental agony of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.
- The OP, shall pay the above said award amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
- Send the free copies to both parties.
(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 24th July 2023.)
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1:- Smt. Susheela bai. T W/o Late Maruthi Naik. D.R., by way of
affidavit of evidence.
Witness examined on behalf of opponents:
DW-1:- Sri Amar Ravi Balikai S/o Ramachandra by way of affidavit
of evidence
Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:
01 | Ex-A-1:- | Certified copy of FIR |
02 | Ex-A-2:- | Certified copy of Spot Panchaname |
03 | Ex-A-3:- | Certified copy of Amanatu Panchaname Spot Mahajar |
04 | Ex-A-4:- | Certified copy of P.M. Report |
05 | Ex-A-5:- | Copy Motor Vehicle Accident Report |
06 | Ex-A-6:- | Certified copy of P.M. Report |
07 | Ex-A-7:- | Certified copy of chargesheet |
08 | Ex-A-8:- | Copy of legal notice dated 30/06/2020 |
09 | Ex-A-9:- | Postal receipt |
10 | Ex-A-10:- | Article tracking ID: RK585721129IN |
11 | Ex-A-11:- | Marriage invitation card |
12 | Ex-A-12:- | Xerox copy of Adharcard Smt. T Susheelabai |
13 | Ex-A-13:- | Driving licence (DL) of Sri Maruthinaik D.R. |
Documents marked on behalf of opponents:
01 | Ex-B-1:- | Certified copy of Schedule cum Certificate of Insurance Certificate No.3361/01499719/000/00 |
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
*GM
.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly 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.