Appeal filed on: O9-O8-2O24 Appeal disposed on: 14-0l-2026 BEFORE THE KARNATAXA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH}

DATED THIS THE l4th DAY OF JANUARY,20.26 CORAM:

HoN'BLE sRr.RAvI SHANKA& JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY EMBER APPEAL No.235412024 Chandrakala.D.C, Aged 49 years, W/o late J.Raju, No.2, Town Planning Layout, Near Sharadadevi ...Appellant/s Nagar Circle, Mysuru-570 009 (In person) -Versus-

Branch Manager, M/s. United lndia insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office- 1, Devaraja Mansion ...Respondent/s Prince of Wales Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysuru-570 004 (Notlce seroed- Absent)

ORDER BY SRI RAVI SHAN!iAR. JUDICIAL MEMBER The Appellant,/ Complainant preferred this Appeal against the dismissal order passed by the District Consumer Commission and submits that her husband was the owner of the Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-09-JF-4057 while he was driving on 6.2.2023 met an accident and suffered head injury, consequently succumbed to the injuries on 12.2.2023. The husband of the complainant had also obtained insurance policy to the said vehicle. The complainant after death of her husband being nominee and beneficiary had claimed for personal accident benefits, the said claim was repudiated for the reason that the premium was not paid towards the personal accident coverage and shown their inability. Aggrieved by the sarne, she approached the District Commission alleging deficiency of service and sought for payment of the personal accident benefits as per the policy.

2. Tll-e District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding the premium was not paid towards personal accident coverage. Against which the appellant/complainant came before this Commission.

3. Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, the complainant also filed a memo with order passed in appeal No.236l/2O23 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Bench, Bengaluru and submits that the case is also with respect to the none payment of the premium towards personal coverage, since the personai accident premium is mandatory. The respondent company ought not to decline the payment of personal accident benefits to the benehciary. They declined for receiving the premium tovvards personal accident coverage itself amounts to deficiency of service. Hence direction was given to the respondent company for payment of the personal accident benefits, the same principle applies to the case on hand. Hence prays to allow the complaint and direction given to the respondent company for payment of personal accident benefits as per the policy.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the husband of the complainarlt voluntarily declined to pay the personal accident benehts and he had voluntarily given letter for not covering the personal accident benefits. Basing on the said proposal, this insurance company had issued own damage policy along with third party liability policy and not covered the personal accident benefits. Though the personal accident coverage is mandatory at the time of issuance of the policy, the husband of the complainant declined to pay the said amount. Having no option, they issued insurance vehicle poiicy without covering the personal accident benefits. The sarne was produced before the District Commission as Ex.R2. The District Commission considering the proposal form issued by the complainant,s husband, dismissed the complaint holding there is no any deficiency of service. The ground urged for allovr,ing the appeal is not satisfactory and not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy, hence prays to dismiss the appeal also, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. Perused the certifled copy of the order and memorandum of appeal and other documents produced by both parties, the complainant during the course of arguments had submitted that the husband ol the appellant also had another vehicle where he had optecl personal accident