Date of Filing:14.08.2008<br /> Date of Order:17.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1789 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Smt. Ramana,<br /> W/o Naga @ Naganna @ Nagaraj,<br /> R/o 10th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout,<br /> Saraswathipura, Bangalore. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The United India Insurance <br /> Company Limited,<br /> Divisional Office, No. 198, <br /> Manjunatah Complex,<br /> II Floor, C.M.H. Road,<br /> Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant requesting that, opposite party be directed to pay the personal accident benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident. The complainant is the widow of deceased Naga @ Naganna @ Nagaraj. The husband of the complainant had insured TVS Moped with opposite party. The moped met with an accident and said assured had died in the said accident. Case was registered in Crime No.485/2006 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC against the Driver of the B.M.T.C Bus. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. The opposite party put in appearance and filed defense version stating that the claimant be directed to approach the Insurance Company for complying with all the requirements sought for. As per the defense version, the claim put up by the complainant has not been rejected by the opposite party so for. It is still under consideration.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The learned Advocate for the opposite party fairly and very rightly submitted that the claim put up by the complainant has not been rejected by the opposite party. The opposite party company by letter dated 20/02/2008 had asked for production of certain documents for processing the claim. As per this letter the opposite party has asked for production of D.L, Succession Certificate, Copy of R.C and requested the complainant to produce documents to proceed further in the matter. So, in view of the submission of the learned Advocate and by letter dated 30/02/2008 of the opposite party it is clear that the claim has not been rejected, it is still under process. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is premature. The complainant has to submit necessary documents before the opposite party and the opposite party after considering the claim and the documents has to process the claim as per law. It is just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to settle the claim as expeditiously as possible within 30 days from the date of production of the documents from the complainant. The complainant is also directed to submit all the documents before the opposite party company for deciding the claim as soon as possible since the matter is of the year 2006. With this observation, the present complaint deserves to be disposed off with the observation that the complaint is premature one. The complainant is directed to furnish the document to the opposite party company and on production of documents the opposite party shall decide the claim as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the present complaint is disposed off. <br /> 5. Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> Rhr., <br />