SHAMSAH ARIF PANJWANI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant in C.C. 355/2007 before the District Forum II, Hyderabad and filed the complaint for recovery of interest on the delayed settlement of insurance policies amount which was dismissed and aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the order and sought it to be set aside as erroneous.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that one Arif Sherali Panjwani had taken three separate Janata Personal Accident Insurance policies, i.e., one for a sum of Rs.10lakhs and the other for Rs. One lakh each. The insurance coverage for the first policy was up to 30.06.2013. The second policy was for a sum of Rs. One lakhs for a period of five years which commenced from 01.03.1998 to 28.02.2003 and the third policy was for a sum of Rs. one lakh was valid up to the year 2013 from the date of the policy. These policies are accidental death policies. While so, the insured died on 06.01.2002 in a road accident. The complainant is the nominee in all the three policies. On the date of the assured, the complainant submitted claim forms to Opposite Party on 25.02.2002. There was no response for a period of six months, so, the complainant sent a complaint to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority vide letter dated 12.08.2003 which was acknowledged by the said authority. The complainant subsequently had received two separate cheques bearing Nos.075682 and 075681 dated 18.10.2004 for a sum of Rs.one lakh and Rs. 11 lakhs respectively. There was a delay in settling the claim. So the complainant sent a registered notice demanding payment of interest on the amounts covered under the insurance policies. Subsequently, a reminder was also sent which was acknowledged by the opposite party. As there was no response, another reminder dated 10.03.2005 was sent to the Grievance Cell of the Divisional Office of the opposite party through the letter dated 12.07.2005 who informed that the payment of Rs. 12 lakhs is full and final settlement of the claim of the amount. The opposite party failed to pay interest on the amount for the delayed period. The complaint is filed on the ground of deficiency in service against the opposite party. The interest is calculated at Rs.3,84,000/- on a total sum of Rs. 12 lakhs at 12% pa from 01.03.2002 to 31.10.2004, also claimed interest at 12% pa on a sum of Rs.3,84,000/- from 01.11.2004 till payment.

(3.) The opposite party filed its counter denying any deficiency in service on its part and had taken the stand that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that in respect of three policies mentioned in the complaint the claim was settled and paid a total sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. The District Forum has no jurisdiction as the policies were issued by the head office situate at Mumbai. Further, Mumbai office only is made as party. As the transaction took place in between the Mumbai office and the opposite party, the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Proof of acceptance as part payment as alleged by the complainant are fabricated documents, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration. The three settlement vouchers, which, shows the acceptance as part payment cannot be taken into consideration as the same does not pertain to the present policies which are mentioned as documents 1 and 2 by the complainant and the complainant is put to strict roof of the same. The complaint is filed claiming penal interest on 01.11.2004 on the settled claim. A consumer is entitled for compensation in case if any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the claim. During the enquiry, along with the evidence affidavit, the complainant filed Ex. A1 to A25 but the Opposite party has not filed any documentary evidence on its side.