F.A.No.940/2012 against C.C.No.413/2008,     

Between:

 Aged about 41 years,

C/

 Near Old Bus Stand, Trunk Road,

Kavali-524 201.                                                     … Appellant/

                                                                              Complainant

       And

1. The Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office-V, Sri

Commercial Complex, D.No.7-4-194/11 & 2A,

2^nd Floor,  beside BBR Hospital,

Hyderabad -500 001.

2.  The Regional Manager,

     Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

     Oriental House,

     Opp.ITC Grand   Hotel,

     Hyderabad.                                                   … Respondents                                                                                           

Counsel for the Appellant     :        

Counsel for the respondents  :        

QUORUM:   SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE  SEVENTH  DAY OF  OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND  THIRTEEN .

Oral Order: (Per  Sri           

                                    ***

                This appeal is directed against the order dt.21.12.2011  of the District Forum-II , Hyderabad in C.C.No.413/2008    towards the accidental death of the policy holder, compensation of Rs.2

         The brief case of the complainant as per the complaint is that his father    left their house on 14.9.2005 and boarded      purchasing furniture material etc.  The father of the complainant accidentally fell down from the train   at   railway station  and died on the spot.   When the complainant’s father  not yet returned home by evening, the complainant and their relatives and well wishers  made efforts to know the whereabouts of his father.   On enquiry, they came to know that one person has fallen from the train at    On receipt of this information, the complainant enquired  with the police at   by   Govt. railway police. The police concerned have shown  the clothes and photographs of the deceased on 16.10.2005.  The complainant identified the  clothes and photographs of the deceased as that of his father by name

        The complainant made  claim application to the opposite parties  within the stipulated time, along with the documents duly attested by the   on the grounds that there was discrepancy in regard to the age, clothes worn and place of death of dead person as regards to which    railway Police registered the case and the father of the appellant/complainant.  Questioning  the reasonableness of the repudiation of  his  claim, the  complainant has filed the complaint.  

        The respondents resisted the complaint contending that the claim was repudiated basing  on the reasons noted in the repudiation letter  that there is no proof or evidence to show that the dead body found on the railway track at   only to get compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with costs.

        During the course of enquiry, in order to   As against  the evidence adduced by the complainant, authorized    signatory of the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

        Upon hearing the  counsel for both the parties and on   prove that the  dead body of the deceased  that was found at   the railway  track,   railway station  is that of the  dead body of

        Aggrieved by the said order  of the District Forum, the complainant preferred the above appeal, questioning the validity and legality of the order. 

        We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record, including the written arguments,  filed by the  counsel for the respondents.  

        It is an admitted fact that the  respondent insurance company  issued insurance policy bearing no.431600/0/888/42/9051/2005  for an assured sum of Rs.5     It is also not in dispute that one person   fell down from train  and died on the spot, near  

        The respondent insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant for the  reasons given below:

        “ 1).  According  to your own statement vide your letter dt.09/11/2005,  the deceased     on 16/09/2005 at  9.00 a.m.   Intriguingly   the   was found on the railway track   at about prior to 1.00 A.M. on 16.09.2005, was conducted at about 7.30 hours on 16.09.2005. Hence it is absurd to co-relate the body of the deceased  to that of your father and you are only attempting to impersonate the body of the deceased. 

        It is highly improbable that you have not made any attempt or efforts to find out the whereabouts of your father for about a month nor have you lodged any FIR with the police on the missing person for such a long time.    failed to attract your attention. 

        3). We have also caused  thorough investigation in to the factum of the accident whose  comprehensive report is received by us. The investigator has conclusively opined that the body found on the railway track is not the one of the   lots of inconsistencies and contradictions. 

        The age of   We have  also obtained an extract of Electrical List  (Assembly segment 125, Part 122, serial  No.700) and according to this the age of  

        5). Again   a look  at the Photo copies of the   of Sri  from the photo copy of the ID Cards is different from the original ID Card and the photo copies were manipulated to reflect the age that suits the purpose.

        6) As per your own statement   fact was corroborated with the  dress of the deceased on the railway track  it was totally different who was wearing Khaki

In this case, the main question for determination  is whether the dead body found at railway track, near   In view of the contentions of both the parties, there are several disputed questions of facts with regard to the identity of the dead body, as that of the father of the appellant, the clothes worn by him  and  the  time he left his house on 14.09.2005 and also the age of the appellant’s father.  In our view, the matter involves examination of witnesses,  appreciation of voluminous  documentary evidence and also finding whether the documents are fabricated for the purpose of the claim.     As such, all these questions cannot be decided in a summary way contemplated under the provisions of the   We are fortified  in our view  by the following decisions: 

 In  Oriental Insurance   Muni Mahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ Page 1. The    disputed  factual  questions, the  Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the matter and the complainant was entitled to seek the relief in a Court of  competent  jurisdiction. 

The  Transport Corporation  Employees Provident Fund Trust vs. Orissa Small Industries and another III (2007) CPJ 316(NC)   and  in Om    reported in III (2006) CPJ page 418 held that the matter involving adjudication of disputed questions of facts has to be tried by competent  Court. 

Thus, we are inclined to give opportunity to the complainant to approach  competent Court for adjudication of matter. 

        In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, giving opportunity to the appellant/complainant to approach the Civil Court or any other Forum, for the reliefs sought for in the complaint.  In the event, the respondents approaches the  Civil Court or another Forum, the period spent  between the trial of the complaint before the District Forum and the disposal of the  matter by this Commission  till today, will be excluded under Sec.14 of the   Limitation  Act,1963, in the light of the decision of the     and others reported in III(2012)CPJ page 17.

                                                           INCHARGE PRESIDENT

     MEMBER

Pm*                                                            Dt. 07.10.2013