State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jagannath Vithalrao Rajkunthwar vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 23 April, 2013
1 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006
Date of filing :16.08.2006
Date of order :23.04.2013
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :1612 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204, 205, 206,
207, 208, 209, 407, 410, 496, 498, 499, 500, 501, 517, 518, 519 &
520 OF 2003.
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :NANDED.
1. Jagannath Vithalrao Rajkunthwar,
R/o ND-1, CIDCO, Nanded.
2. Sow.Sushhilabai Pandurang Pawde,
R/o HUDCO, Nanded.
3. Sow.Kamalbai Wamanrao Godghase,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
4. Sow.Sangita Vasudeo Polawar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
5. Smt.Jankibai Laxmanrao Supekar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
6. Sow.Neelabai Kondiba Kadam,
R/o Vishnupuri,Nanded.
7. Mohan Narayanrao Bhatt,
R/o HUDCO, Nanded.
8. Sumitrabai Lahanji Bhatt,
R/o HUDCO, Nanded.
9. Sow.Kausalyabai Bhaurao Bhoskar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
10. Prabhakar Ramrao Kurumbhatte,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
11. Saraswatibai Vithobaji Saudekar,
R/o HUDCO, Nanded.
12. Shobhabai Babanrao Somshetwar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
2 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006
13. Smt.Laxmibai Govindrao Shahu,
R/o Gurudwara Gate No.1,
Vithal Nagar, Nanded.
14. Manikrao Ganpati Padmawar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
15. Smt.Shantabai Manikrao Padmawar,
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
16. Brijlal Hiralal Malu,
R/o Pathak Galli, Sarafa Bazar,
Near Hatai Mohella, Nanded.
17. Sow.Ramkanwar Brijlal Malu,
R/o as above.
18. Smt.Anandibai Ramrao Waikar,
R/o HUDCO, Nanded.
19. Meena Shamrao Udgirkar,
R/o Vazirabad, Nanded.
20. Shriniwas Keshavrao Deshmukh,
R/o ND-41, W/174, Giri Kunj,
Ramnagar, CIDCO, Nanded.
21. Kondabai Kamaji Bhosle,
R/o Pawdewadi, Nanded.
22. Laxmi Shrinivas Deshmukh,
R/o ND-41, W/174, Giri Kunj,
Ramnagar, CIDCO, Nanded. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Complainants)
VERSUS
1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Per its Branch Manager,
Indore D-024, A-Ratlamkoti,
AB Road,
Indore (MP).
2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Per its Branch Manager, Nanded,
Lahoti Complex, Vazirabad,
Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
(org.Opponents)
3 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006
FIRST APPEAL NO. :1613 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 12, 13 & 14 OF 2003.
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :NANDED
1. Masnaji S/o Tukaram Hake,
2. Sadashiv Masnaji Hake,
3. Suresh Masnaji Hake,
4. Sanjay Masnaji Hake,
All R/o Vazirabad, Nanded.
5. Shyamkumar Venkatrao Mhaisekar,
R/o Vithalwadi, Gurudwara Gate No.3,
Nanded.
6. Ishwarbua Amribua Giri,
7. Ashok Ishwarbua Giri,
8. Balraj Ishwar Giri,
9. Pandit Ishwarbua Giri,
All R/o ND-42, J-2/3/4/HUDCO,
New Nanded. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Complainants)
VERSUS
1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Per its Branch Manager,
Indore D-024, A-Ratlamkoti,
AB Road,
Indore (MP).
2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Per its Branch Manager, Nanded,
Lahoti Complex, Vazirabad,
Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
(org.Opponents)
CORAM : Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
4 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006 Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.W.M.Farooqui for appellants, Adv.Shri.M.M.Ambore for respondents.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Both these appeals are filed against common judgment and order dated 04.07.2006 passed by District Forum, Nanded in various complaints. By its judgment and order District Forum dismissed all the complaints. These appeals filed by various complainants in common. We are deciding both these appeals by common judgment and order as subject matter is common in both these appeals. At the outset we are of the view that separate appeals ought to have filed by appellants as separate complaints were filed.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as under.
All the complainants are resident of Nanded. They decided to go for religious pilgrimage. For that purpose they availed service of travel agency. Said travel agency obtained personal accident insurance for all the travellers. The tour started on 21.12.2000 by bus bearing No.MH-09-S 6769. It is stated by the complainant that insurance was taken in the said tour and accordingly every complainants deposited Rs.1680/- with one Shri.Rambhau Laxman Aanerao Said Rambhau obtained insurance policy from the respondent. Said policy was for personal accident. It is further stated in the complaint that on 27.1.2001 the bus met with accident at Sarekha Tq.Barghat, Dist.Sewani of Mahdya Pradesh. All the tourists were injured in the said accident. As insurance policy was taken for personal accident, all the complainants approached to Rambhau Aanerao and asked to file the claim. Said Rambhau issued letter dated 7.2.2001 to insurance company. Thereafter said Rambhau died and claim cannot 5 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006 be proceeded. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by demanding insurance claim.
3. Respondent appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is submitted that said policy was in the name of Rambhau Aanerao only but he was not made party to the complaint by the complainant. He was necessary party. It is further submitted that the claim was not preferred by anyone of the complainants. Therefore they are not entitled to any claim and also complaints objected on the ground that complainants did not suffer from permanent disability. Therefore they are not entitled to any sum insured.
4. After hearing all the parties District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the claim was not filed by complainants with the insurance company and complainants are not suffering from permanent disability.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order the original complainants came in appeal.
6. Adv.Shri.Faruqui appeared for the appellants and Adv.Shri.M.M.Ambhore appeared for the respondent. Both the counsels filed their written notes of arguments. It is submitted by Adv.Faruqui that District Forum ignored the facts that premium amount was collected by one Shri.Rambhau Aanerao while obtaining policy for all the travellers. Policy of personal accident was obtained by said Rambhau. Accident occurred in the year 2001. Complainant waited for settlement of their claim as said Rambhau promised them of getting sum insured of Rs.1 lakhs to each. But as the amount was not given they approached to Forum. It is further submitted by Adv.Faruqui that Forum committed error in holding that complainants ought to have waited for mercy to be showered on them by the respondent. It is further submitted by them as claim was not 6 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006 settled even after much time complainant approached to Forum. Therefore it cannot be said that complaints are premature. It is further submitted by Adv.Faruqui that policy was not denied by insurance company and when it is admitted fact that it need not to be proved.
7. Adv.Ambhore appeared for respondent submitted that present appeals filed by many complainants against the common judgment and order. Adv.Ambhore objected the appeals on the ground that various complaints filed before District Forum, separate appeals ought to have filed by the complainants. Therefore appeals be dismissed. It is further submitted by Adv.Ambhore that policy was taken by one Shri.Rambhua Aanerao. He was not made party to the complaints and at present it seems that he is dead. It is also submitted by Adv.Ambhore that alleged policy was taken from office of insurance company at Indore, M.P. and complaints filed at Nanded. Therefore complaints are not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is further stated by Adv.Ambhore that the claim was not preferred by complainants before insurance company. Therefore there is no question of settling any claim. Without getting any response from insurance company complaints were filed. Complainants ought to have approached to insurance company by filing the claim form. Therefore all the complaints are premature. Even otherwise it is submitted by Adv.Ambhore that not a single complainant suffering from permanent disability. Therefore they are not entitled to claim any amount under Janta Personal Accident policy. Therefore appeal be dismissed.
8. We heard both the counsels and perused the papers. Initially we are considering that separate complaints were filed before District Forum. Complaints were decided by common judgment and order. Complainants ought to have file separate appeal before State 7 F.A.No.: 1612/1613/2006 Commission but complainants filed common appeal which is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
9. It is an admitted fact that policy was taken by one Shri.Rambhau Aanerao but he was not made party to the complaint. Therefore no detail about the policy or about reference of claim was come on record. It is seen from the record that claims were not preferred by the complainants before insurance company after alleged accident. Therefore insurance company did not get chance to decide or settle the claim. It is also seen from record that policy was Janta Personal Accident policy. According to said policy insured has to suffer the permanent disability. In the present case not a single medical certificate is produced on record to show that anyone of the complainants is suffering from permanent disability. In our view District Forum rightly considered all the facts and evidence brought before it while dismissing the complaints. We do not want to interfere the reasoning recorded by the District Forum. Hence, O R D E R
1. Both these appeals are dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Uma S.Bora, B.A.Shaikh Member Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane