BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD FA NO.548/2017 AGAINST CC No.88/2014 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Between :

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Warangal Branch Office, 8-5-43 to 48, Seetharama Complex, Opp: Sunil Theater, Station Road, Warangal – 506 002. … Appellant/

Opposite party no.1 And

1.Smt Faheema, W/o.late Md.Amzad Pasha, Age 20 years, Occ:Attender, R/o.H.No.3-6-141/15, Gundibandal, Hanamkonda, Dist . Warangal. … Respondent/

Complainant

2. Sri Sri Sri Automobiles, Rep. by its Manager, H.No.15-2-28, Mulu Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist. …Respondent/

Opposite party no.2 Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.G.N.Venkata Ramana Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.K.Karunakar-R2.

CORAM:Hon’ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Incharge President, And Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao, Member-J. FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE .

Oral Order:(Per Hon’ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, I/c.President.)

*****

1. This is an appeal filed u/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dt.12.2.2016 of the District Consumer Commission, Warangal made in C.C.No.88/2014.

The appellant is the opposite party no.1, Respondent no.1 is the complainant and Respondent no.2 is the opposite party no.2 in in C.C.No.88/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The complainant’s husband Mr.Md.Amzad Pasha met with a road accident on 31.3.2013 on Hanamkonda to Mulugu National High Way 202 and while undergoing treatment in M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal he died on 1.4.2013 and on the complaint being lodged, the P.S., Hasanparthy registered a case in Crime No.53/2013. The complainant’s husband was the owner of two wheeler motor cycle (Splendor-Pro) bearing Registration NO.AP-36- AP-9388 and he insured the said vehicle with opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 vide policy no.35100731126203104439 valid from 13.2.2013 to 12.2.2014 covered with personal accident. The complainant was the nominee under the said policy. The complainant approached the local Branch Manager of the opposite party no.1 and requested to pay the claim amount of the insurance policy. As the said policy was subsisting as on the date of accident and also furnished the documents to the satisfaction of opposite party no.1, but they failed to settle the claim amount. The complainant issued legal notice dt.4.7.2014 to the opposite party to pay the insurance amount covered under the personal accident policy for which no response was given. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the total amount of Rs.1 lakh towards personal accident, Rs.50,000/- towards damages and to pay costs.

4). Opposite party no.1 filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the opposite party no.2 is the dealer of Hero Honda Motor cycles and it was appointed as corporate agent for their insurance business. Opposite party no.2 is authorised to issue motor policies on behalf of opposite party no.1. The opposite party submits that the complainant’s husband did not pay the premium amount for the vehicle bearing No.AP-36-AP-9388, as such the said policy was cancelled. The opposite party no.1 submits that they have right to repudiate the claim of the complainant, since no premium has been received for renewal of the policy from the complainant’s husband. The opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5). Before the District Forum, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to 13. Mr.K.Krishnaiah, Asst. Manager of Opposite party no.1 insurance company filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 & B2.

The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to deposit in the Forum a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insured amount with interest @ 7% p.a. fro