Complainant/s:             Smt. Anasuya @ Anasakka,

                                       W/o Ningappa Madnalli, Age: 65

                                       Years, Occ: Agriculture and

                                       Business, R/o Hole-Alur. Taluk:Ron,

                                       Dist: Gadag.

                                            (Reptd., by Sri.R.B. Challamarad, Advocate)   

V/s

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H. PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

             The averments of the complaint in brief are:

         2.  The above complaint is filed by the complainant stating that, he is the owner of vehicle Tata Vista bearing Registration No.KA-26 M 4129. The husband of complainant by name Ningappa Shiddarayappa Madnalli was the previous owner of the said vehicle and the same was insured with OPs under policy No.68070231190100000486, who died on 18.02.2019.  Due to heavy rain and flood during May 2019, the rain water entered into Holealur village and surrounded area, the house of complainant was also fell down and she lost all the documents in respect of the vehicle.  The said vehicle was also damaged due to heavy rain as it was parked in the timber yard of the complainant.  Under such circumstances, she was unable to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in her name.  The insurance policy was came to be renewed and continued for the period from 11.07.2019 to 10.07.2020 in the name of deceased Ningappa.  The complainant paid yearly installment amount of Rs.8,016/- for renewal of the policy and later she got transferred the ownership of the vehicle in her name and spent nearly Rs.70,000/- for the repair and service of the said vehicle and submitted a claim in respect of the vehicle with OPs and also submitted new RC in her name.  The OPs replied to the complainant on 05.03.2020 and rejected the insurance claim.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have issued another notice to the complainant by insisting her to continue the policy for further one year by renewing the same in the name of deceased Ningappa.  It is further submitted that, she has invested huge amount for repair and service of the said vehicle and submitted a insurance claim during the existence of the policy and the OPs are responsible to make good the loss caused to the complainant, but the OPs failed to do so.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice through her Advocate to OPs on 26.06.2020 and the OPs received the same but, not replied till today.  Hence, the complainant constrained to file this complaint.  The cause of action arose for this complaint on 26.06.2020 and on 05.03.2020 respectively, when the legal notice issued by the complainant and when the OPs refused the insurance claim.  Hence, prayed to allow this complaint.

          3.   In pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version.  OP No.1 and 3 remained absent.   

                                  Written Version of OP No.2     

          4.       It is submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is tenable either on law or on facts.  It is further submitted that, the contents of complaint are not true and correct.  The contents of para 1 are partly true and correct.  It is not admitted by the OP that, due to heavy rain and flood in the month of May and August 2019, the rain water was surrounded by the village.  It is not admitted by the OP that, the house of complainant was fell down due to heavy rain and complainant also lost all the documents.  The complainant was not mentioned the house number and timber yard number where the vehicle was parked and not mentioned whether she has claimed the compensation from the Government of Karnataka for the damage caused to her property due to flood.  It is not admitted by the OP that, due to above said reason, she was unable to obtain succession certificate and other necessary documents and also to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in her name.  It is submitted that, at the time of renewal for the period 11.07.2019 to 10.07.2020, she was not informed about the death of her husband Ningappa Madnalli.  As per the contents of complaint, the said Ningappa was died on 18.02.2019.  Even having the knowledge about the death of her husband, she has renewed the policy in the name of death person.  It is not admitted by the OP that, she has spent nearly Rs.70,000/- for the repair and service of the vehicle.  This OP has repudiated the claim as per the tariff, condition No.8 on the event of insured policy will not immediately lapse but, will remain in force for a period of three months.  But, in this case, complainant renewed the policy after three months and that too by suppressing the true fact that, the complainant’s husband died.  On this count, OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant, which is legal.  The contents of para 2 to 4 are not true and correct.  It is false to state that, complainant has submitted insurance claim during the existence of the policy.  Complainant is not fair because she has suppressed the death of her husband and renewed the policy in his name only.  The cause of action mentioned in the complaint is not correct.  The authorized surveyor has not made the survey of the damaged vehicle and therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any of the compensation and other charges and hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

           5.  The complainant filed his Chief affidavit along with 21 documents.  The OP has not filed chief affidavit and documents. 

    COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

          6.   On pursuance of the materials, placed by the complainant and OPs, the following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as averred in the complaint and entitled to any relief?

2. What Order?

   7.        Our findings to the above points are:-

              Point No. 1:  Partly Affirmative.

              Point No. 2:  As per the final Order

R E A S O N S

       8.  POINT NO.1:  The complainant has filed this Complaint against the OPs stating that, OPs refused to pay the insurance claim amount in respect of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-26 M-4129 under the Policy No.  68070231190100000486.  Complainant submits that, due to heavy rain and flood of Malaprabha river and Bennehalla in the month of May to August-2019, the entire village was surrounded by the rain water, the water is stagnating in the village for long time and the house of the complainant fell down due to heavy rain and the vehicle was damaged which was parked in the timber yard.  The vehicle stands in the name of deceased Ningappa Shiddarayappa Madnalli, the said Ningappa died on 18.02.2019.  Due to the above said hurdles, they cannot receive the succession certificate to transfer the RC in the name of complainant.  Hence, they reviewed the policy in the name of deceased Ningappa himself to continue the policy.  As such, complainant has made heavy investment for the repair and service of the vehicle. 

          9.       On the other hand, OPs admitted the policy and further submits that, the contents of complaint are false and alleges that, the deceased Ningappa i.e., the husband of complainant had died on 18.02.2019 but, the complainant reviewed the policy on 11.07.2019 without informing the OPs about the death of her husband Ningappa.  Hence, submits that, the complainant had suppressed the true fact that, her husband had expired. 

          10.     Ongoing through the records placed before this Commission, it is an undisputed fact that, the husband of the complainant had insured his vehicle with OPs and even it is in force during the alleged incident.  Even OPs have not denied the alleged incident.  Complainants have not produced any document to show that, during those days, there was heavy rain and her house had fallen down due to that, she cannot communicate the same to OPs and she cannot apply for the succession certificate to transfer the RC in her name.  Anyhow, even OPs also not produced any document to show that, OPs will not receive the premium in the name of deceased and also OPs have not taken any undertaking that the insured is alive while paying the insurance premium amount of a vehicle.  Anyhow, the complainant produced some of the documents pertaining to the bill which was issued by the Om Sai Car Care for repair of the said vehicle.  These bills are not denied by the OPs.  But the complainant also not taken any evidence from the particular person who repaired the vehicle to take proper defence.  Hence, Commission comes to the conclusion that, it should be considered on non-standard basis.  Accordingly, Commission comes to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed deficiency in service on their part and hence, we answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative.

        10.  POINT NO. 2: In view of our findings on the above point, the complaint filed by the complainant is partially allowed. In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1. The above Complaint is partly allowed.

2. The OPs are directed to pay half of the repaired amount i.e., Rs.35,000/- to the complainant.

3. Further the OPs are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charges.

4. Further the OPs are directed to pay the above said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OPs are entitled to pay the entire bill amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

          5. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 27^th day of November-2021)

,         (Shri B.S.Keri)                              (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

               MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT