BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the 3rd day of November, 2006
CD.No. 122/2006
1)Sumalatha, D/o Late V. Gurrappa, Age 12 years.
2) Saliny, D/o Late V. Gurrappa, Age 8 years,
Both are Minors and Rep. by their next friend maternal Uncle, Vadde Chakrapani, S/o V. Narasimhulu,
All are residing at R/o H.No. 8-91,
Rathana (VandP), Thugali (M), Kurnool District. . . .Complainant
-Vs-
1) Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa.
2) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.,
Yemmiganur Branch, Kurnool District.
. . .Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri A. Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri I. Anantharama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day the forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with benefits and with 24% interest per annum, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainants are minors and are represented by their next friend and maternal uncle by name V. Chankrapani. The complainant’s mother late Smt V. Bhagyalakshmi, has taken two policies bearing No. 653706866 and 653705730 for Rs.50,000/- each respectively and nominated the complainants has her nominee. On 31.8.2005 the insured V. Bhagyalakshmi died of heart pain, the insured husband V. Narasimhulu pre deceased her. The death intimation was given to the opposite parties within a month and claim forms were submitted along with required formalities by their has grand father whose was an appointee. The grand father of the complainant’s died in motor vehicle accident on 19.2.2006 and the same was intimated to the opposite parties by their next friend V. Chakrapani. Thereafter, the complainants did not received any communication from the opposite parties even after lapse of 10 months. The non settlement of claim by opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service to the complainants.
3 In substantiation of their case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Attested xerox copy of policy bond bearing No. 653706866 (2) attested xerox copy of policy bond bear No. 653705730 (3) letter dated nil of opposite parties to V. Narasimhulu (4) attested xerox copy of letter dated 15.3.2006 of P. Chakrapani to opposite parties, and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No. 1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased V. Bhagyalakshmi submitted two proposals dated 20.3.2005 and 30.3.2005 with opposite parties for assured sum of Rs.50,000/- each and nominated the complainants to the above said policies. As the daughters/ (nominees) are minors the policy holder appointed V. Narasimhulu her father as appointee to the minors. The appointee / grand father of minors intimated the opposite parties as to the death of policy holder on 31.8.2005 and preferred a claim on 4.10.2005 by submitting death certificate. Meanwhile the appointee/ grand father of the minors died in a road accident in the month of February, 2006 hence, the title on the above two policies have become open due to death of appointee and the opposite parties has called for succession certificate/ title waiver requirements through their letter dated 25.3.2006. It further submits that the opposite parties cannot determine to whom the policy amounts are payable in respect of above two policies as the appointee died before receiving the policy amounts. As per the terms of insurance policy the opposite parties has to pay the assured amounts to the nominees only in the present case the nominees are minors and the appointee made by the policy holder has died and the title became open, hence, the opposite parties are unable to pay the assured amount.
6. It lastly submits that the opposite parties are ready and willing to consider the claim amounts subject to production of Succession Certificate/ Title Waiver requirements by the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) proposal of V. Bhagyalakshmi dated 20.3.2005 (2) proposal of V. Bhagyalakshmi dated 30.3.2005 (3) letter dated 25.3.2006 of opposite parties to V. Narasimlulu (4) death certificate issued by M.R.O Tuggali and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.4 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainants are entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
9. It is a case of the complainant that their mother V. Bhagyalakshmi insured her life with opposite parties under two policies bearing No. 653706866 and 653705730 for Rs.50,000/- each and nominated the complainants has her nominee. The policy holder died on 31.8.2005 and preferred a claim for assured amount. But the opposite parties submits that the complainants are minors and the assured amount is not payable to them. The claim was preferred by the appointee appointed by the policy holder but before receiving the policy amounts appointee died, hence the title on the above policies have became open due to death of appointee, hence the opposite parties are unable to pay the assured amounts.
10. The opposite parties in their written version submits that they are ready and willing to consider the claim amounts subject to production of succession certificate, but this case is filed by the next friend of the minors and he cannot obtained a succession certificate. The opposite parties submits that in the interest of minors the said amount is not payable to the next friend V. Chakrapani.
11. The opposite parties are willing to pay the assured amounts to the minors/ complainants, in view of the above submission of the opposite parties made in their written version, as their intention is to safeguard the interest of the minors entitled for the benefits under the said policies. The opposite parties has to deposit the assured amounts of the policies with its benefits to the credit of this case into this Forum for its proper adjudication. As the beneficiaries of the said policies are minors whose entitleness of the benefits of these two policies are not denied but for their minority by the opposite parties and the legal status of their alleged guardian/ next friend is doubted for want of cogent material in his favour, the deposit of the said assured amounts deposited by the opposite parties in a Nationalized Bank for a fixed term deposit on the name of this forum for a period till the minor complainants attain the age of majority appears to serve the ends of justice.
12. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties for deposit of the assured amounts of two policies with its benefits into the forum within a period of ten days and that the said amount so deposited shall be invested in the form of deposit for fixed period in a nationalized bank of complainants option on the name of this forum till the minors/ complainants attain the age of the majority for enabling its due payments to them at relevant time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 3rd day of November, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A. 1 Attested xerox copy of policy bond bearing No. 653706866.
Ex A.2 Attested xerox copy of policy bond bear No. 653705730.
Ex A.3 Letter dated nil of opposite parties to V. Narasimhulu.
Ex A.4 Attested xerox copy of letter dated 15.3.2006 of P. Chakrapani to opposite
Parties.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Proposal of V. Bhagyalakshmi dated 20.3.2005.
Ex B.2 Proposal of V. Bhagyalakshmi dated 30.3.2005.
Ex B.3 Letter dated 25.3.2006 of opposite parties to V. Narasimlulu.
Ex B.4 Death certificate issued by M.R.O Tuggali.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1.Sri A. Pamasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.Sri I. Anantharama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
