STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                            FA 471 of 2014

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 481 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD

Between:

M. Sadanandam,

S/o Yesaiah, age : 37 years,

Occ : Private employee,

R/o Mallareddypalli village,m

Desaipalli post, Veenavanka Mandal,

Karimnagar District                 ..        Appellant/complainant

And

1. Andhra Bank, Chellur Branch,

Chellur village ( OOture post)

Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District – 505 502

Rep by its Branch Manager

2. Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad – II,

Andhra Bank Building, Koti, sultan Bazar,

Hyderabad – 500 195,  rep. by its General  Manager.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad – 500 029           ..Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant                            :         Sri N. Satish

Counsel for the Respondents                       : Sri A. Saneeva Reddy for R1 &R2

                                                                         Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy for R3

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Friday, the Nineteenth  Day of January,  

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal  filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant   praying this Commission  to set aside the  impugned order dated 24.06.2014 made in CC 481 of 2012  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM-II, Hyderabad.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant,   in brief, is that  his mother, Smt. More Laxmi, has opened an Abhaya Gold Savings Account bearing No. 078510075207336 with the first opposite party  on 1^st February, 1999 and she operated the same till her death on 02.12.2010. As per the terms and conditions of the Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account, in the case of death,   the nominee of the account holder   is entitled for an amount of Rs. One lakh, as nominee when he submitted the claim  on 07.02.2011, after death of his mother, to the first opposite party which was forwarded to 3^rd opposite party, who, repudiated the claim vide reply notice dated 24.07.2012 against his legal notice dated 29.06.2012 on the ground that the account referred by the 3^rd opposite party and the settlement of claim in favour of the nominee was not relating to the account no. 122910025001093 is different and the complainant herein is nothing to do with the same. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 24% pa  from the date of complaint till the date of realization, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

4)       The opposite party no. 1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that  the mother of the complainant,  Smt. More Laxmi, has opened an Abhaya Gold Savings Account bearing No. 078510075207336 with them on 01.02.1999 and the complainant submitted the claim after death of his mother, contending that his mother Smt. More Laxmi along with her husband, More Yesaiah has opened  the said Account jointly and after her death, her nominee, her husband, More Yesaiah had made claim on 17.01.2011 under the scheme and on the basis of supportive documents , they credited an amount of Rs.99,889/- on 03.10.2011 to the Account bearing No. 122910025001093 belongs to More Yesaiah. The complainant suppressing the above said fact falsely filed the above complaint and hence he is not entitled to claim any amount. Hence prayed to dismiss  the complaint.

5).      The second opposite party though served with notice did not contest the matter.

6).      The opposite party no. 3 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, contending that the deceased Smt. More Laxmi has opened two Andha Bank Savings Account No. (1) 078510025207336 Challur Branch, Karimnagar District and the nominee is More Sadanandam, Son of the deceased and (2) Account No. 12210025001093 Joint Account at Ramesh Nagar, Godavarikhani and the nominee is Mr. Yesaiah, husband of the deceased. As per the agreement dated 31.10.2010 between the Andhra Bank and the OP.3, the maximum sum insured shall be Rs.one lakh only per head, irrespective of number of Abhaya Gold Saving Bank Accounts held by the insured. Since they paid Rs.one lakh under the scheme vide Account No. 12210025001093, the claim against the Account No. ) 078510025207336 was rejected and the same was informed to the complainant through Andhra Bank and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant   filed his  evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-9  and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and  got  marked as B1 to B8.

8)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.

 9)      Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant  preferred this appeal before this Commission.

10).    Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments.   Heard both sides. 

11)     The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

12).   Point No.1 :

There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is the son of the deceased More Lakshmi and she died on 02.12.2010 and the deceased Lakshmi opened two Accounts in the opposite party Andhra Bank under Abhaya Savings Account Nos. (1) 078510025207336 Challur Branch, Karimnagar District and the nominee is More Sadanandam, Son of the deceased and (2) Account No. 12210025001093 Joint Account at Ramesh Nagar, Godavarikhani and the nominee is Mr. Yesaiah, husband of the deceased.   

13)     The contention of the respondents/opposite parties is that as per Ex.B-1 and Ex. B8 Memorandum of Understandings, entered between the insurance company and the opposite Party Andhra Bank, under clause 2 ( c), the cover under this policy shall be in addition to all other covers the Insured Person holds outside this Scheme.  In case of holders of multiple ABHAYA GOLD SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS, the maximum sum insured shall be Rs.1,00,000/- only per head, irrespective  of number of Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Accounts held by the insured under the scheme at any of the Andhra Bank branches.  Under clause 3”D’ – the risk coverage  under this policy shall be in addition to any other policy held by the insured persons with the Insurance company or any other Insurance company.  In case of holders of multiple ABHAYA Gold Savings Bank Accounts, the maximum sum insured will be Rs.1,00,000/- only per head, irrespective of the number of ABHAYA Gold Savings Bank Accounts held by the insured under the Scheme at all the branches of Andhra Bank.

14)     Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that Ex. B1 is the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 31.09.2011 but the Non-judicial stamp paper was  purchased on 26.03.2012 and that Ex. B8 is the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 31.10.2010 on  Non-judicial stamp paper purchased on 09.02.2011, hence the said exhibits are fabricated one. After perusal of those two exhibits we have no hesitation to accept that the   MOUs were executed before purchase of the said Non-judicial stamp papers but they are not registered documents. The terms and conditions of the MoUs are applicable from the date of agreement and from the date of execution of signatures of both parties  but not on the purchase of the Non-judicial stamp papers.  The respondents/opposite parties already paid Rs.one lakh to one of the nominees as per the agreement.  The nominees of the account holders under the Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account are eligible for insurance claim only on the basis of the MOUs entered into between the Andhra Bank and the Insurance company and if the said MOUs are not in force, then none of the nominees  are entitled to insurance claim. Hence the District Forum rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant/complainant and there is no ambiguity in the said order.

15).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. There are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

16).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 24.06.2014 in CC 481 of 2012  passed by the District Forum II, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance  four weeks.   

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated :  19.01.2018.