THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JULY, 2023

APPEAL NO.1122/2023

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER

The Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd,

Divisional office, No.9,

No.10/4, Mitra Towers                             ...Appellant/s

Kasturaba Nagara,

Bangalore city (Head office),

Now represented by its Regional office,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd,

5^th & 6^th Floor, Krushi Bhavan,

Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,

Bangalore – 560 001

Represented by its Deputy Manager,  

(By Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah, Advocate)

-Versus-

1.      Smt.Shruti W/o late Vital.R.

          Aged about 34 year,

                                                            …. Respondent/s

2.      Ullas.V. S/o late Vittal.R.

          Aged about 13 years,

          Minor represented by natural

          Guardian mother Smt.Shruti

          The first petitioner herein,

Both petitioners are residing

          At No.28/1/45, 28^th ward,

Near Malleshwara Temple,             ... Respondent/s

          Ramanagara Town-562 159

          Ramanagara District 

ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Opposite Party in complaint No.13/2021 preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Ramanagara which directed this appellant to pay compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs by virtue of the policy with 6% interest per annum along with Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses and submits that the complainant nos.1 and 2 are the dependents of deceased life assured one Mr.R.Vittal who had obtained comprehensive policy towards his motor bike. Such being the case, on 12.3.2020 at 8.40 p.m. he was riding the vehicle reach his place after completing his job, met with an accident near road hump and suffered grieves injuries immediately he was shifted to Ramanagara District Hospital and given first aid. Subsequently he was directed to shift to the NIMHANS hospital, Bengaluru accordingly he was taken to the Bengaluru from Ramanagara District Hospital, and while shifting the said life assured succumbed to injuries. The complainants being legal representative have claimed for compensation by virtue of the policy, but the Opposite Party has not settled the claim for the reason that the complainants have given information with respect to the death of life assured at belated stage. Due to which they could not arrange for investigation the matter, hence repudiated the claim.   

2. Aggrieved by the said, the complainants approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and sought for compensation. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount.

3. This Opposite Party after receipt of the claim have repudiated the same for the reason of delay, but the District Commission not appreciated the said delay and allowed the complaint, which is not in accordance with law. Hence prays for set aside the order passed by District Commission, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Heard on admission.  

5. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that, it is an admitted facts that, the life assured i.e. husband of the complainant no.1 succumbed to injuries on 12-3-2020, the said accident occurred during the policy in force. It is an admitted fact that, the complainants by being a representative of the policy holder and claimed for compensation by virtue of the policy which was obtained towards the vehicle, but this appellant had repudiated the claim for the reasons that the complainants have not given information with respect to the accident and the information was given only after the lapse of 12 months, due to which they could not investigate the matter with respect to the settlement of the claim. Hence they have shown their inability to settle the claim.   The said ground for rejection of the claim cannot be accepted. We noticed here that as soon as the accident was occurred, the police have registered the FIR and subsequently charge-sheet was filed, even postmortem was also conducted and IMV report was also furnished. We noticed that the life assured/deceased husband of complainant no.1 had valid driving licence as on the date of accident and also the policy was also in force, when all the documents are available at public authority, further investigation does not required by the appellant’s authority. In order to settle the claim of the complainants, investigation done by the police department is sufficient and when the said investigation report is available, the appellant could have received the same in order to settle the claim, instead of that they have wrongly rejected the claim, the said rejection definitely amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant Nos.1 and 2 being the LRs of the deceased insured are entitled to get compensation as per the policy. The District Commission has rightly appreciated and directed this appellant to pay the above said amount which according to us does not requires any interference. We do not find any valid reason to admit the memorandum of appeal. As such the appeal is dismissed as no merits and we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The impugned order 28.2.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ramanagara in CC.No.13/2021 is confirmed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member

Jrk/-