This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of         Sri. Totakuri Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant and Sri G. Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No.2 & 3; opposite party No.1 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

ORDER

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, FAC President)

This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The averments made in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant by name Joga Arjun had obtained Policy from opposite party No.2 & 3 on 27-04-2015 and the opposite party No.2 had issued policy, vide policy No. 4080/TVS-TW-101584682/00/000 valid from 10-12-2014 to 09-12-2016, i.e. for a period of 2 years.  The complainant submitted that while obtaining the above policy, the husband of the complainant has put the complainant as nominee and her name was incorporated in the policy.    The husband of the complainant met with a rod accident on 26-08-2015, while he was proceeding to Koyagudem from his native place, when the complainant’s husband reached near Koyagudem village in the mean time the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-20-DD-7314 came with high speed, in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner by coming to extreme right side and dashed the motor cycle of the husband of the complainant, due to which the husband of the complainant sustained grievous injuries in vital organs of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.  The complainant further submitted that on a report given by her, the police, P.S. Tekulapalli registered a case in Crime No.147/2015 U/sec. 304A IPC against the accused, namely Valashetty Venkanna, S/o. Satyam, R/o. Koyagudem.  The complainant further submitted that, after death of her husband, the complainant informed the same to the opposite party No.3, but the opposite party No.3 gave evasive reply for that she issued legal notice to the opposite parties No.1 to 3 on 31-05-2016 and the notice of opposite party No.1 was returned and the notice of opposite parties No.2 & 3 was served.  Even after receipt of notice the opposite parties did not choose to pay the policy amount, as such the complainant filed this complaint.    

3.      On behalf of the complainant the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5.

Ex.A1:-Photocopy of policy copy (Group Secure Mind).

Ex.A2:-Photocopy of F.I.R., Charge sheet and PME Report.

Ex.A3:-Office copy of legal notice dt.31-05-2016 along with postal receipts (Nos.3).

Ex.A4:-Complaint settled reply dt.11-08-2016 and 26-07-2016 issued by Departments of Posts India.

Ex.A5:-Returned un-served Registered cover.

4.      On receipt of the notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter, the opposite party No.3 submitted that they have not rendered any deficiency of service by declaiming the claim of the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any of the claim as prayed in the complaint and also they denied the issuance of policy.  The opposite parties further denied the policy obtained by the husband of the complainant and put the complaint as nominee and also they denied the entire averments made by the complainant about accident in the complaint.  The opposite party No.3 further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as several complicated questions of law and facts  are involved and it is civil court which can only adjudicate the same and to support their contention they relied on, Judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, in 2003 (3) ALT 40 (CPA), M/s. Donroll Industries Ltd., & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors.  The opposite parties further submitted that the claim of the complainant is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the opposite party No.3, the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service, the present complaint does not attract the provision of Consumer Protection Act and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party No.3 further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part, as such this complaint is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The opposite parties filed photo copy of risk assumption letter dated   15-04-2015 along with Group Secure Mind Certificate of Insurance.

6.      Counsel for complainant filed memo stating that the averments made in the complaint may be treated as their written arguments.  Opposite parties filed written arguments. 

7.      Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

In this case, the husband of the complainant had taken ICICI Lombard, Nibhaye Vaade policy on 27-04-2015 from the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 had issued policy, vide policy No. 4080/TVS-TW-101584682/00/000 valid from 10-12-2014 to 09-12-2016 and at the time of taking the policy the husband of the complainant put the complainant as nominee in the above policy.  The husband of the complainant met with road accident sustained grievous injuries on vital organs of the body and succumbed due to the injuries on the spot on 26-08-2015.  According to the complainant after death of her husband, being a nominee and class-I legal heir of the deceased, she informed the same to the opposite party No.3.  As the opposite party No.3 failed to settle the claim she approached the Forum for redressal. 

          From the documents and material available on record,  the husband of the complainant had obtained ICICI Lombard Group Secure Mind to auto loan customers of TVS credit services Ltd. and paid Rs.231.04 towards premium for the period from 10-12-2014 to 09-12-2016 vide policy No.4080/TVS-TW/101584682/00/000 which is marked as Exhibit A-1 and the opposite parties No.2&3 had issued policy on 27-04-2015.  On 26-08-2015 the husband of the complainant met with road accident and succumbed due to the injuries on the spot.  As per the policy terms and conditions the sum assured amount is Rs.72,200/- on the account of death of insured on account of an accident.  Except simply denying the averments made in the complaint by the complainant, the opposite parties No.2&3 failed to produce any cogent evidence to support their contention.  In the written arguments the opposite parties relied on the judgment of Maharasthra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad 2004 (2) CPR 417 wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission observed that “the claim was under consideration and the insurance company wanted original documents of all police papers duly verified by concerned Police Station, Post Mortem Report, Inquest Panchanama and final “A” summary papers verified by the police station and signature of JMFC and ADS report duly verified, which are essential for consideration of the claim”. The case on hand, the opposite parties No.2&3 nowhere stated that the claim could not be settled because of non-compliance of certain formalities and for non-furnishing of documents by and on behalf of the complainant.  The opposite parties failed to settle the claim even after receipt of notice, dt.31-05-2016 (i.e. Exhibit A-3) from the complainant.  From the above, it is clear that the citations submitted by the opposite parties cannot applicable to the present case. We do not found any merits in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties.  And also we observed that the opposite parties failed to produce any documentary evidence to support their case except filing policy copy i.e. Exhibit B-1.  From the documents and material available on record, we are of the opinion that without the support of the documents, the objection taken by the opposite parties cannot be taken into consideration.  In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the policy amount of Rs.72,200/- covered under the policy.   As such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

Point No.2:-

In the result, complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties No.2 & 3 to pay the Policy Insurance Cover amount of Rs.72,200/- covered under the policy, together with interest @9% p.a. from  the date of complaint i.e. 19-08-2016 till actual payment.  The opposite parties are directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  The complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum, on this the 14^th day of July, 2017.

Member                 Member                 President

                District Consumer Forum,

        Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

Member                 Member                 President

                District Consumer Forum,

        Khammam.