Complaint filed on: 28-09-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 30-12-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.54/2020

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., LLB., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB., LADY MEMBER

Complainants: -

1. Smt.Manjula

W/o Lingaraju

Aged about 35 years,

R/o Chikkabellavi village,

Tumakuru taluk and District, 

Karnataka state

2. Gangamma

W/o Basavraju,

Aged about 38 years,

R/o Thimlapura village,

Kibbanahalli post,

Tiptur taluk, Tumakuru district

Karnataka state

 (By Sri.Siddaramanna.H.V, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-                                 

1. The Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance, ICICI Bank Tower,

Plot No.12, Financial District,

Nanakramguda, Gachibowli,

Gacgubiwkum, Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500032

2. The Proprietor,

Saketh Motors,

Maruti Show Room,

Sira Road, Tumakuru

(Maruti Insurance Broking Private Limited, Direct Kroker (General) IRDIA License, No.428), Branch office. 

 (OP No.1-Exparte)

(OP No.2-by Sri.T.S.Niranjan, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI.K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

The complainant Nos.1 and 2 have filed this consumer complaint against the OPs and prays to direct the OPs to pay personal accident claim of Rs.2,00,000-00 each to the complainants as per terms of policy along with interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 and to grant such other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that, the husband of complainant No.1 by name Lingaraju and husband of complainant No.2 by name Basavraju and another person by name Shivananda together travelling in Maruti Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA06P0715 on 12-3-2017 from Thimlapura village towards Arasikere to reach Haronalli to get some Ayurvedic medicine at about 11.00 a.m. a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1078 dashed against the said car due to negligent driving, as a result the three inmates of the said car, one by name Lingaraju died at the spot and another person by name Basavaraju died at Arasikere Government hospital and another person by name  Shivananda died on the way to the hospital near Tiptur. Postmortem was conducted and the legal heirs have obtained motor accident compensation against the KSRTC regarding personal accident claim as per car insurance policy bearing no.3001/MI-04071120/00/000 and said policy was valid from 16-10-2016 to 16-10-2017. The complainants have applied for personal accident claim of Rs.2,00,000-00 each with the OP and in spite of repeated requests and letters written to the OP company, the company officials have deliberately issued so many replies to the complainants and demanded them to send one or the other documents related to the accident. On 13-7-2017 the OP counsel had sent all documents to the OP through RPAD and the OP had received the documents. On 17-7-2019 the complainants have issued a legal notice to OP calling upon them to settle the claim. Finally the OP issued a letter dated 30-10-2019 to the complainants by rejecting their claim. The complaint is in time from the date of final repudiation hence, this complaint.             

          3. OP No.1 did not appear before this commission in spite of service of notice and is placed exparte.

4. The 2^nd OP has appeared through its learned counsel and filed objection contending that, the complaint against the 2^nd OP is not maintainable and they have not committed any deficiency of service. The complainants have falsely implicated the 2^nd OP. There is no proper allegation against this OP with respect to para nos.4 to 11 of the complaint and there is no knowledge of this OP with respect to para nos.2 and 3. The 2^nd OP is not an agent of the 1^st OP and the 2^nd OP is working under Maruthi Insurance broking Private Ltd, New Delhi as an insurance adviser. The insurance policy issued through this OP in favour of one Shivananjappa s/o late Basavarajaiah vide police bearing no.3001/MI-04071120-00-000 for the period from 16-10-2016 to 15-10-2017. The complainants are at liberty to get the benefits as narrated in the policy terms and conditions and pray to dismiss the complaint against this OP.

5. The complainants have filed their affidavit by way of examination in chief and produced the original policy documents as per Ex.P1 and xerox copies of letter correspondences as per Ex.2 to Ex.P8, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P9 and Ex.P15 are rejection letters, Ex.P10 is legal notice, Ex.P12 is postal receipt, Ex.P13 is xerox copy of postal track consignment, Ex.P14 is xerox copy of reminder letter, Ex.P16 and P17 are certified copy of FIR and complaint, Ex.P18 is certified copy of crime details form, Ex.P19 is certified copy of motor vehicles accident report, Ex.P20 is certified copy of mahazar, Ex.P21 is certified copy of witness, Ex.P22 is certified copy of postmortem and Ex.P23 is certified copy of dead body investigation report and so also filed written arguments.

6. The OP did not adduce evidence and not addressed arguments and their argument is taken as heard. 

7. Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:

1. Whether the complaint filed by the

complainants is maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

2. Whether the complainants are entitle for

relief as prayed by them?

3. What order?

8. Our findings to the above points are that:

Point Nos.1 and 2: In the Negative

Point No.3: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2: These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings. We have perused the complaint, version of the 2^nd OP, affidavit of the complainants and written arguments submitted by the complainants. The complainant Nos.1 and 2 have filed this consumer complaint against the OPs for claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000-00 each with respect to personal accident claim and damages of Rs.1,00,000-00 each. The accident took place on 12-3-2017 on that day the husband of complainant no.1 by name Lingaraju and husband of complainant no.2 by name Basavraju and another person by name Shivananda were travelling in the alleged Maruti Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA06P0715 on 12-3-2017 from Thimlapura village towards Arasikere to reach Haronalli to get some Ayurvedic medicine and at about 11.00 a.m. a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1078 dashed against the alleged car as a result of which three inmates of the said car by name Lingaraju died at the spot, another person by name Basavaraju died at Arasikere Government hospital and another person by name  Shivananda died on the way to the hospital near Tiptur, the complainants claiming personal accident claim under policy no.3001/MI-04071120/00/000 and it was valid from 17-10-2016 to 16-10-2017 as per Ex.P1. The complainants have also produced certified copy of FIR along with other documents pertaining to death claim report as per Ex.P16 to Ex.P23. The complainants have also produced rejections claim letters dated 27-10-2017 and 30-10-2019 and filed this consumer complaint on 28-9-2020 hence, the consumer complaint is in time. On perusal of Ex.P1 it revealed about additional PA cover premium (200000 per person) for 5 persons.  

10. OP no.2 has taken up the contention that the complainants are at liberty to get benefits as per the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no deficiency of service as against them.

11. Now at this juncture, it is relevant to stated that the joint complaint is not maintainable as the complainants have not take permission of the Hon’ble Commission for filing joint complaint as contemplated under Section 35  (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence, joint complaint is not maintainable.

12. Further on perusal of the cause title, the complainants have not at all stated that they are the legal heirs of the deceased husband and they also not produced survival certificate to know whether the complainants are the only legal heirs of their husbands and there are no any other legal heirs apart from them and the complainants have no locus-standi to file this complaint on their individual capacity and they have also not stated that they are the wife of deceased husband, such being so the complaint is also not maintainable. Further on perusal of correspondence letters between the complainants and OP No.1, the complainants have not produced any required documents as called by the OP No.1 and their claim are repudiated. Finally on perusal of the policy document Ex.P1 the alleged vehicle where the husband of complainant Nos.1 and 2 were travelling in Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA06P0715 has been hypothecated to Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd, Tumkur and the said bank has not made as party to this proceedings though the said bank is the necessary party to this proceedings and hence the complaint is also not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party.

13. Hence, under these circumstances as discussed above the consumer complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable and the complainants are not entitled for any relief and accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in the negative.   

14. Point No.3: In view of our finding on point Nos.1 and 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The consumer complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of December, 2021).

LADY MEMBER          MEMBER                   PRESIDENT