BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.123/2009 Order dated this the 29th day of December 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Janardhana S/o Late Gunda @ Thimmaiah, R/o D.Malligere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Krishnamurthy., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., No.1119/B, M.C.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.S.Ravi Shankar Bharadwaj., Advocate) Date of complaint 24.10.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 19.11.2009 Date of order 29.12.2009 Total Period 1 Month 10 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for settlement of insurance claim. 2. The case of the Complainant is that late Gunda @ Thimmaiah, was the member of V.S.S.B.N. of Hosagavi Village and he was K.C.C. Card Holder bearing No.86/1, having obtained insurance with the Opposite party for personal accident through the V.S.S.N. Ltd., Hosagavi Village, valid from 13.12.2007 to 12.12.2010. The Complainant is a nominee of the said policy. Unfortunately, the insured met with an accident on 02.07.2009, wherein a tractor and trailer dashed against him and died at spot. In this regard, the police have registered the case. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the Opposite party about the accident and requested to settle the claim and then submitted all the relevant documents, but the Opposite party has not settled the claim and Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the present complaint is filed claiming insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- with damages of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The Opposite party has filed version contending that the V.S.S.N. Hosagavi Village has obtained totally 145 policies for K.C.C. Holders and out of them one policy was issued in the name of Gunda @ Thimmaiah, no policy has been issued in the name of Thimma @ Gunda. All the documents produced by the Complainant shows that his fathers name as Thimma @ Gunda. Therefore, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any insurance amount and hence, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the Complainant has filed affidavit and produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.8. The Opposite party has also filed affidavit. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not settling the insurance claim? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- It is an admitted fact that the V.S.S.N. Ltd., Hosagavi Village, has obtained insurance policies from the Opposite party Insurance Company for its members holding K.C.C. Cards and out of them one policy is issued in the name of Gunda @ Thimmaiah. According to the Complainant, his father Gunda @ Thimmaiah, is the member of the Hosagavi V.S.S.N. and the policy is obtained to him by the Society bearing No.72001/47/07/43/0000/1371 and he is the nominee. According to the Opposite party, the name in the policy differs from the fathers name of the Complainant. Therefore, the insurance claim is not settled. It is admitted fact that except the Complainant nobody has preferred the claim with respect to this policy and the Complainant has furnished the documents. Only on the ground that the name differs the Opposite party has not settled the claim. Of course in the FIR and PM report Ex.C.1 and C.2, the name of the deceased is shown as Thimma @ Gunda S/o Late Magadi Thimmegowda. Even in Ex.C.4 Election Identity Card, the address is Thimma @ Gunda S/o Magadi Thimmegowda. In the application for claim as per Ex.C.5, the name of the insured is one as Gunda @ Thimmaiah S/o Magadi Thimmegowda of D.Malligere, to which the Complainant and even the Manager of the V.S.S.N. Hosagavi Village has put signature and even verification report in form no.C furnished by the Opposite party as per Ex.C.6, the Manager of the K.C.C. has confirmed that Gunda @ Thimmaiah S/o Magadi Thimmaiah at D.Malligere died in the accident and his K.C.C. card number is 86 dated 20.06.2007. Ex.C.7 is the group insurance policy issued by the Opposite party and Ex.C.8 is the list of members to whom Opposite party has issued the insurance. Ex.C.8(a) at Sl.No.85 relates to Gunda @ Thimmaiah S/o Magadi Thimmegowda bearing card No.86/1 and the nominee is Janardhana his son. So, the actual nominee has filed the claim before the Opposite party and is the Complainant before this Forum. Merely because, in the FIR and PM report, the name of the deceased is shown as Thimma @ Gunda S/o Late Magadi Thimmegowda, D.Malligere, they words in the name of the dead person in the accident are exchanged to that of the particulars mentioned in the policy, it cannot be accepted that the person shown in the policy is different to the person shown in the FIR and the PM report. The Manager of the V.S.S.N. has certified and confirmed that the insured is dead in the accident and Complainant is a son of deceased insured. Therefore, the names in the insurance policy are interchanged in the police records. Even the Manager of V.S.S.N. Hosagavi has filed affidavit and sworn that insured is the father of the Complainant who is the nominee. So, there is no dispute at all about the identity of the person who got the insurance and the dead person. Therefore, the Opposite party is not justified in rejecting the insurance claim sought by the Complainant on account of the death of his father to whom the Opposite party has issued the insurance. Hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 9. Therefore, the Opposite party is liable to pay the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any other compensation for some delay. 10. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay the insurance claim of Rs.50,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 29th day of December 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
