BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B.,  Honb’le President

And

Smt.C.Preethi,  M.A., L.L.B. Hon’ble Lady Member

Friday the  9^th  day of February, 2007

C.C.No.125/2006

M.Yellappa alias Chinna Yellappa, 38 years, S/o. M.Balaiah,

R/o. H.No.38/99, Yerraburuju, Kurnool.                                                  

                   …Complainant

          -Vs-

1. Commissioner,

     Municipal Corporation, Kurnool.

2. The Branch Manager,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kadapa.                                                                       …Opposite parties

          This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Krishna Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and  Sri. D.Yella Reddy, for opposite party No.1 and Sri. L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy,  for opposite party No.2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Honb’le President

1.             This case of the complainant is filed seeking an award in his favour on the opposite parties to pay him the amount under group savings linked insurance scheme with 24% interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as charges for deficiency in service alleging that M.Nagamma M/o. of the complainant – while working as Sweeper in IIIrd Division of Municipal Corporation Kurnool, was a member of group savings linked insurance scheme 1986 contributing Rs.10/- per month from her salary as it covers the risk of  death for the amount fixed by the opposite party No.2 along with interest and she died on 23-05-1991 while  in service leaving behind her, the complainant and her husband Balaiah who died subsequent thereon on 04-11-2001 and the opposite parties are at deficiencies of service in not making payment of the amount under said scheme and in violation of the rules of  said scheme inspite of lapse of 15 years after demise of said Nagamma and issual of legal notice dated:

28-12-2006 and representation dated:10-08-2006 and the knowledge of the complainant as to said scheme is since last  1½ year .

2.       In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused there appearance through their counsel and contested the case denying their liability to the complainant’s claim.

3.       The written version of the opposite party  No.1 besides questioning the competency of the complainant and his legal heir ship to the deceased M.Nagamma, for want of any succession certificate and any alleged contribution at Rs.10/- per month under the said scheme and any concern of M.Nagamma, W/o. Balaiah with the opposite parties and any deficiency on its part in compliance of requirement contemplated under said scheme and non maintainability of the case for non joinder of all legal heirs of the deceased Nagamma and an account of bar by limitation and submit that as per its payable register one M.Nagamma W/o. Aiyanna worked in Ivth Division of Kurnool Municipality contributing an amount of Rs.7.50/- per month only and the implementation of said scheme for its employees commenced from 20^th February 1991 and its sending of the amounts of premium from the employee members to the opposite party No.2 by way of cheques and as the claim of the complainant being sent to opposite party No.2 on 28-08-2006 for payment of Rs.10,000/- under said scheme alleges any deficiency on its part and thereby any liability to the complainants claim and so seeks dismissal of the case with costs.

4.       The written version of the opposite party No.2 alleges its privy with the opposite party No.1 and the entertainment of the claims on intimation of the death  of the member and submission of the claim form with full particulars of remittances with in three years from the date of death and the belated claim subsequent to three years will be treated for exgratia only and the opposite party No.1 is at deficiency in not furnishing the required complete particulars as to the demise of the decease, deceased joining the scheme, date of exit, date of birth, premium amount, place of working and the serial number of said member and thereby pleads any deficiency on its part and thereby any of its liability for the complainants claim which is firstly time bared and secondly was bad for non joinder of all legal heirs of said deceased M.Nagamma and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.         In substantiation of the contentions while the complainants side   has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 to A8, and its sworn affidavit and replies to the interrogatories exchanged,  the opposite party side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 to B9 besides to their sworn affidavit and replies to interrogatories exchanged in  between them.

6.       Hence, the point for the consideration is whether the complainant has made out the limitation to this case and the liability of the opposite parties for the complainants claim:?

7.       The Ex.A1 is the certificate issued by Kurnool Municipality as to death of M.Nagamma, W/o. Aiyanna resident of H.No.68/82 peta Kurnool – on 23^rd May 1991. Para No.2 of the complaint says M.Balaiah- who died on 14-11-2001 – as husband of said M.Nagamma. The complaint alleges that the complainant-  M.Yellappa @ Chinna Yellappa as resident of H.No.38/99 Yerraburuju area of Kurnool is S/o. M.Balaiah.  As the name of the  deceased M.Nagammas husband as per Ex.A1 being Aiyanna, the complainant who is said to the S/o. M.Balaiah appears to be  no relation ship with said deceased M.Nagamma W/o. Aiyanna especially as son.  In view of the supra stated inconsistency relating to the privy of complainant as son to said deceased Nagamma the Ex.A1 bears any relevancy for appreciation of the case of the complainant who claims to be the son of M.Balaiah.

8.       The Ex.A2 is the certificate issued by Kurnool Municipality as to the death of M.Balaiah S/o. Roshanna resident of H.No.68/82 of Minchin Bazaar Kurnool on 14^th November 2001. As the Ex.A1 says the husband name of M.Nagamma as Aiyanna and herself as resident of 68/82 of peta locality of kurnool and the Ex.A2 as shows said M.Balaiah as resident of 68/82 of Minchin Bazaar locality of Kurnool hardly their remains any thinking to believe that the deceased person mentioned in Ex.A2 was having any concern with the shown Ex.A1 and the deceased shown in Ex.A1 and A2 were none else than spouses. Hence, the Ex.A2 also finds to little relevancy for any appreciation in this case.

1. The Ex.B1 is an attested copy of G.O.Ms. No.12 (M.A.) dated:07-01-1991 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Department introducing “Group Saving Link Insurance Scheme 1991 for public health and non public health workers in municipalities and Municipal Corporation in the state of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 20^th February 1991 covering to insured as risk of death for Rs.10,000/- at a deduction of monthly premium of Rs.10/- from the salary of said insured from the commencement of the said scheme till the date of retirement or death during service, to remittable under a consolidated demand Draft directly to L.I.C. of India. The Ex.B2 an attested Xerox copy is the Governing provisions rules and terms and conditions of said scheme.
2. Under said provisions of Ex.B2 the membership with said scheme is compulsory to all working members who are in service on 31-01-1991 and who are members of old family benefit funds scheme or who join service on or after 01-02-1991 Rule No.4-4 of Ex.B2 prescribes a monthly premium of Rs.10/- for a insurance coverage of Rs.10,000/- and provides for the payment of amount of insurance to the nominee/nominees of the said employee in case of death while in service. While rule 7 of said scheme provides the procedure for recovery of subscription, the rule 8 of said scheme deals with the payment of insurance amount and the liability of Municipality/Municipal Corporation and the Insurance Corporation, and Rule 14 provides for the facility of nomination.
3. The complainant did not file any cogent material to the effect that the deceased M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah was employee of Division No.3 of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation inspite of the opposite party requiring its strict proof by their specific denial. As the written version of the opposite party No.1 in para No.4 says that M.Nagamma W/o. Aiyanna as worked in Divisional No.4 of Kurnool Municipality  on the basis of the pay bill  register maintain by it,  as  it doesn’t say that M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah was its employee the said circumstances taken in para No.4 of opposite party No.1 is not amounting to any admission on the part of the opposite party No.1 as to the status of said M.Nagamma as employee of opposite party No.1. When the complainant could not establish his deceased mother M.Nagamma w/o. Balaiah as the employee of opposite party No.1 nor could it get to the record any material as to any deduction of monthly premiums from the pay of said M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah there appears any material to believe the said deceased M.Nagamma was employee of opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance scheme by any  of her contributions from her monthly salary and thereby there appears any relevancy in the claim of the complainant at the liability of the opposite parties even under the Ex.B2  and so there appears any relevancy in the contentions of the complainant as to any alleged deficiencies of service of the opposite parties, especially, when the privy of the deceased M.Nagamma as employee of opposite party No.1 and member of said scheme is not established.
4. The Ex.B8 is a attested Xerox copy of annexure II said to have been furnished by opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2. Even though it shows the complainant as S/o. Late M.Nagamma but as it doesn’t  disclose the husband name of said late M.Nagamma and on the other hand shows the residential address as 38/99 Yerraburuju locality, Kurnool which is consistent either with   the residential addresses  mentioned in Ex.A1 or  A2,  there arises every doubt as to relevancy of Ex.B8 and its any concern with the case and to the deceased mentioned in Ex.A1.
5. The employment of deceased M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah with opposite party No.1 further remains in doubt from the perusal of Ex.B9 – an attested Xerox of letter of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 which holds  certain blanks unfiled as to some material particulars. Further if the deceased M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah was really employee of opposite party No.1 and covered by the insurance cover of said scheme having contributed from her salary, there appears any reason as to why the name of M.Nagamma did not find its place in Ex.B4 list and as to why any claim was not made by the opposite party No.1 as master policy holder of its employee on the contingency of demise of said M.Nagamma instead of waiting till

11-08-2006 i.e., date of Ex.B9, especially when said Nagamma died as back as 23^rd May 1991.

1. The Ex.B3 is an attested covering letter dated:30-06-1993 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 said to have addressed for sending there under a cheque bearing No.183398 dated:30-06-1993 for Rs.1,54,650/- towards subscription of G.S.L.I scheme for the period from 2/91 to 5/93. It doesn’t envisages the particulars of amount collected month wise from each of their members and the list of those members from whom the said contributions were received. Hence, the Ex.B3 remains of any help to determine whether the deceased M.Nagamma was an employee of the opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance scheme.
2.  The Ex.B4 is an attested Xerox copy of letter in Rc.No.2087/B3/96/dated:19-06-1998 said to be enclosing there with list of employees who contributed to G.S.L.I. scheme for the month of February 1991. While the complainant alleges the deceased M.Nagamma was employee of 3^rd Division of opposite party No.1, the name of M.Nagamma doesn’t find its place  either in the list of names mentioned in  IVth  Division of Kurnool Municipality or in the  list of the names mentioned in IVth Division of Kurnool Municipality. As the said list of employees mentioned in Ex.B4 doesn’t take mention of the other particulars of the names of the employees mentioned therein as to their parentage or husbands name and as no name as M.Nagamma or  Mallepogu Nagamma is found in said list their remains any doubt as to the privy of said M.Nagamma with opposite party No.1 as its employee covered under said insurance scheme and so the Ex.B4 remains of any much avail to the case of the complainant to determined the deceased M.Nagamma was employee of opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance  scheme.
3. As the amount of subscription of employee members for the period 2/91 to 5/93 was said to have been sent under Ex.B3 on 30-06-1993 and the list of the employees from whom the contributions for the month of the February 1991 was received were said to have been sent in the month of June 1998 and as the demise of deceased M.Nagamma said to have occurred on 23^rd May 1991, by the date of said demise of M.Nagamma,  irrespective of the fact whether or not she was employee of opposite party No.1, neither in the premiums of said members nor any list of said members to whose account those contribution are to be accounted for  were sent to the  opposite party No.2. at its due time and thereby the  coverage under the very  insurance of the members remains in question. As there being any list of members with their intelligible identity and the amount deducted for them and its communication  to the opposite party No.2 within reasonable time of their collection, their remains any circumstance to believe any contract of insurance of opposite party No.1 for its employees under said scheme  as its master policy holder, with opposite party No.2. Hence, the Ex.B3 and B4 also remains of any avail to constitute any liability of the opposite party No.2 towards the claim of the complainant especially when the identity and privy of deceased M.Nagamma, is not established with opposite party No.1 and said insurance scheme.
4. The Ex.B5 an attested Xerox of letter dated:15-07-1998 addressed by the opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1  as reminder to their earlier letters dated:14-11-1997 and 21-03-1998 to send the list of employees with their recoveries as at 20^th February 1991 and family benefit fund list prior to 20^th February 1991. By the above what remains further clear is that is opposite party No.1 was neither prompt nor regular in transmission of the required contributions at the list of the employees as contemplated under the said scheme. As the Ex.B5 scope being nothing but reminding the opposite party No.1 as to requirement made earlier and nothing more than that, there remains hardly any material in Ex.B5 to believe as to the member ship of deceased M.Nagamma to said insurance scheme and the benefits there under to her or her nominee especially when no material filed to show the complainant as nominee of the said deceased Nagamma.
5. The Ex.B6 is an attested Xerox of letter of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 in response to Ex.B5 taking mention of complaints of requirements by it vide Ex.B4. Even though it requests for settlement of death claims at an early date but as it is not clear as to whose death claims, nonetheless that of M.Nagamma the said request was made, it hardly remains of any avail to the case of the complainant to hold that the said requested was made for settlement of death claim in reference to insurance claim of deceased M.Nagamma.
6. The Ex.B7 is attested Xerox of letter dated:06-06-2006 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party No.1 requesting the later to forward claim application to opposite party No.2 for arranging the payment of Rs.10,000/- with bonus. By itself it remains clear that the agitation’s of the complainant for the insurance amount of Rs.10,000/- is made by him at a highly belated stage and beyond the prescribed period of the limitation from the cause of action which must have accrued to him on 23-05-1991 if the deceased M.Nagamma was really an employee of opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance scheme by her periodical premium contributions and died while in service. Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act., the limitation prescribed is two years to the date of cause of action and as this case is filed beyond the said prescribed period of limitation and not even in the condonation for delay was sought and permitted at the time of institution of this case, the case of the complainant is hopelessly bared by limitation. Any unsubstantiated  oral representation or visiting the office of the opposite parties or causing legal notices after the period of  limitation could not save the limitation as per the decision of Hon’ble State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi, in M/s Manorama Vij V/s Swatantra Land & Finance Private Limited reported in II (2003) C.P.J. page.No. 558. Hence, the correspondence covered under Ex.A3 to A8 remains of any relevancy for appreciation in this case.
7. The Ex.B8- claim in Annexure-II – for Mallepogu Nagamma by the opposite party No.1 and the Ex.B9 letter of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 requesting for settlement of claim- in the absence of any cogent record to say said M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah – the father of the complainant, was employee of opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance scheme the Ex.B8 and B9 appears to be that were formally submitted by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 at the instance of the complainant,  merely to wash its hands without any application of its mind to the governing provisions of said scheme and the law of limitation prescribed under the statute.
8. As there is doubt as to the proper identity of deceased M.Nagamma W/o. Balaiah as employee of opposite party No.1 covered under said insurance scheme  by contribution of premiums and there being any name as M.Nagamma or Mallepogu Nagamma in the list appended to Ex.B4 and the said claim of the complainant under said deceased M.Nagamma,  being highly bared by the limitation not being agitated with in two years from the date of demise of said M. Nagamma there appears any material to hold the liability of the opposite party No.1 for compliance of any terms and conditions said insurance scheme in submitting the claim and any liability of opposite party No.2 in settlement said fictitious claim and so any material to hold the deficiencies the opposite parties 1 and 2 and thereby any of their liability to the claim of the complainant.
9. Consequently, there being any merit and force in the claim and contentions of the complainant the case of the complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances each of the parties do bear their costs.                                                              

Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 9^th day of February, 2007

MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the Complainant: Nil                          For the Opposite Parties : Nil

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1 Death Certificate of M.Nagamma issued Municipal Administration

          Department of Kurnool Municipality.

Ex.A2 Death Certificate of M.Balaiah issued Municipal Administration

          Department of Kurnool Municipality.

Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice, dated:28-01-06 issued by complainants

          Advocate to opposite party.

Ex.A4 Acknowledgement of Ex.A3 by Kurnool Municipal  Corporation.

Ex.A5 Office copy of Legal notice, dated:01-05-2006 addressed to opposite

           parties No.1 and 2.

Ex.A6 Acknowledgement of Ex.A3 by Kurnool Municipal Corporation.

Ex.A7 Acknowledgement of Ex.A3 by opposite party No.2.

Ex.A8 Reply of opposite party No.2 to Ex.A5 dated:10-05-2006.

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1 Attested copy of G.O.M&.No.12, M.A., & Urban Development (G)

          Department dated:07-01-1991.

Ex.B2 Attested copy of Rules & Regulations generating the Andhra Pradesh

          Public Health & Non public Health workers of all Municipalities &

          Municipal Corporations – Group savings linked Insurance scheme –

          1991.

Ex.B3 Attested copy of letter in Roc.No.508/91-B3, dated:30-06-93

          addressed by Commissioner Kurnool Municipality to L.I.C. of India,

          Kadapa.

Ex.B4 Atteted copy of letter in R.C.No.2087/B3 /96, dated:19-06-98 (along

          (with list in six pages).

Ex.B5 Attested copy of letter, dated:15-07-98, addressed to opposite party

          No.2 to opposite party No.1.

Ex.B6 Attested copy of letter in R.c.No.2087/B3/98-24-7-98 addressed by

          opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2.

Ex.B7 Attested xerox copy of letter dated:06-06-2006 addressed by

          complainant to opposite party No.1.

Ex.B8 Attested xerox copy of claim application in Annexure-II.

Ex.B9 Attested Xerox copy of letter, dated:11-08-2006 of opposite party No.1

          to opposite party No.2.

MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. Sri. S. Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool.

2. Sri. D. Yella Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.                                                   

3. Sri. L. Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties