Complaint is filed on 5-8-2009
Compliant disposed on 14-7-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.M.,PGDCA (Consumer Awareness), MEMBER
HON’BLE SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com ., LL.B., MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 125 OF 2009
Between:
Saleema Bee W/o. Md. Mohsin Ali, Age 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.7-3-359, Mankammathota locality of Karimnagar proper and district.
… Complainant
AND
- Br. Manager, LIC of India Branch-1, Jeevan Jyothi Building behind 1 Town Police Station, Karimnagar.
- Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Jyothi building behind 1 Town Police Station, Karimnagar.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 14-6-2010, in the presence of Sri I. Madhukar Rao, Advocate for complainant, and Sri P. Ashok, Advocate for opposite party no.1 & 2, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint was filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 on 5.8.2009. The brief facts of the complaint are as under.
2. The complainant is the mother of Late Sri Mohd.Mohmood Ali who was a Constable in Police Department. He obtained two insurance policies from opposite party no.1 bearing no.682727546 for Rs.75,000/- and no.682728586 for Rs.50,000/-, having nominated the complainant as nominee in both the policies. Under the terms of the said policies benefit of basic sum plus two additional sums plus bonus and accidental benefits are assured.
3. The said insured died in an accident in harness whereupon the complainant (nominee) approached opposite party no.1 and lodged the claim for benefits assured under the said policies. Opposite party no.1 paid the complainant an amount equal to basic sum plus two additional sums plus bonus after deducting the unpaid premia, balance of loan and interest there on.
4. Meanwhile the wife of the insured knocked the doors of High Court praying for settlement of claim under the said policies in her and her minor daughters favour through Writ Petition. Opposite party in its counter stated that the amount assured under the said policies were paid to the mother of the insured on 24.3.2008 as she was the nominee in both the policies pleading that the nominees are only entitled to claim the benefit assured under the policies as per the provision of the Insurance Law. Considering this plea High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and directed the petitioner (wife) to seek remedy in Civil Court.
5. There upon the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and claimed payment of amounts payable under accidental benefits in respect of the said policies and submitted all the relevant documents. But opposite parties refused to settle her claim and asked her to get orders from High Court for granting her claim or enter into compromise with the wife of the insured for considering her claim. The complainant accuses that opposite parties colluded with the wife of the insured to defeat her claim as nominee.
6. Disgusted with the attitude of the opposite parties the complainant got issued Legal Notice to opposite party no.1 on 22.6.2009. Opposite party no.1 replied on 2.7.2009 stating that the claim for accidental benefits can be considered provided Joint Discharge Voucher is submitted by all the legal heirs, which confirms that opposite parties colluded with the wife of the insured and are deliberately and intentionally causing loss to the complainant though she is entitled to receive the said accidental benefit, payable under the said policies by virtue of being nominee, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
7. As a last resort the complainant filed this complaint on 5.8.2009 praying for direction to opposite parties to pay the complainant the accidental benefits payable under the said two insurance policies with interest @ 24% from 24.3.2009 till the date of realization, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides costs and any other relief entitled for.
8. Opposite parties filed counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint. Opposite party submitted that since the Writ Petition filed by the wife of the insured in High Court was dismissed vide judgment Dt: 5.9.2008 with a direction to seek remedy in Civil Court for deciding the share of the amounts received by the complainant, R3 in Writ petitioner no.636708 among the claimants.
9. Alternatively the opposite parties advised the complainant through letter Dt: 30.6.2009 to compromise with the wife of the insured and her daughter and to submit a Joint Discharge Voucher to consider payment of accidental benefits.
10. A copy of the order of the high Court Dt: 5.9.2008 was also sent to the counsel for complainant and separate letter was also sent to the wife of the insured by registered post on 30.6.2009 with the same advice, denying the allegations that opposite parties colluded with the wife of the insured.
11. Further, opposite parties expressed their readiness to deposit the said amount in the Forum for settlement as it deemed fit.
12. Opposite parties submitted that the litigation raised by the rival claimants generally comes under the purview of Civil Court and not Consumer Forum and so prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit reiterating all the allegations and prayers made in the complaint and filed documents marked under Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties Dt: 22.6.2009. Ex.A2 is the postal receipt addressed to opposite parties. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt; 30.6.2009. Ex.A5 is the reply from opposite party addressed to counsel for complainant Dt: 2.7.2009. Ex.A6 & A7 are the letter from opposite party addressed to complainant in respect of information about the payment of claim due Dt: 24.3.2008.
14. Opposite parties filed Proof Affidavit confirming all the denials made in the counter and filed documents marked under Ex.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the photo copy of order in Writ Petition No.6367 of 2008 Dt: 5.9.2008. Ex.B2 & A4 are one and the same documents. Ex.B3 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 30.6.2009. Ex.B4 & A5 are one and the same documents.
15. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, if so, what relief can be awarded to the complainant.
16. It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s son Sri Mohd. Mahmood Ali obtained two insurance policies from opposite party no.1 viz. 68272756 and 682728586 for Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. It is also an admitted fact that the insured died in harness and on being claimed by the complainant the opposite party no.1 paid her, she being the nominee, the amounts payable under the said policies except the accidental benefits.
17. Meanwhile the wife of the insured Nazuma Begum and her minor daughter filed Writ Petition no.636708 in High Court of A.P. praying for share in the benefits payable under the said two insurance policies. The Hon’ble High Court on perusing the counter of opposite parties dismissed the Writ Petition vide judgment Dt: 5.9.2008 directing the petitioner to seek remedy in Civil Court for claiming the respective share in the amount received by the complainant under the said two insurance policies.
18. There upon the complainant approached opposite party no.1 to pay her the rest of accidental benefits payable under the said two insurance policies as the Writ Petition filed by the wife of the insured was dismissed. But opposite parties on the pretext of the direction of the high Court in the said judgment directed the complainant to compromise with the wife of the life assured and submitted a Joint Discharge Voucher to facilitate the payment of the rest of the accidental benefits, which is unwarranted.
19. But the complainant asserting her right to the said amount by virtue of being the nominee filed this complaint.
20. Perusal of the records and documents reveal that there is no evidence on the behalf of wife of the insured, having sought any remedy in Civil Court in furtherance of her claim of share in the benefits payable under the said two policies as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
21. More over it is a settled law that under the contract of insurance the nominee is only entitled to the benefits payable under insurance policy and no other person has any claim over that benefit, in the light of which the opposite parties are held deficient of service towards the complainant. Only in the absence of mention of nominee the legal heirs come into picture for claiming the assured amounts under insurance policies.
22. As such the contention of the opposite parties that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint is untenable and repellable.
23. In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant the accidental benefits payable under the said two policies with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of complaint i.e. 5.8.2009 to the date of realization and Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 14th day of July 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the photo copy of Legal Notice issued by counsel for complainant addressed to opposite parties Dt: 22.6.2009.
Ex.A2 is the postal receipt addressed to opposite parties.
Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card.
Ex.A4 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt; 30.6.2009.
Ex.A5 is the reply from opposite party addressed to counsel for complainant Dt: 2.7.2009.
Ex.A6 & A7 are the letter from opposite party addressed to complainant in respect of information about the payment of claim due Dt: 24.3.2008.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the photo copy of order in Writ Petition No.6367 of 2008 Dt: 5.9.2008.
Ex.B2 & A4 are one and the same documents.
Ex.B3 is the photo copy of letter from opposite parties addressed to complainant Dt: 30.6.2009.
Ex.B4 & A5 are one and the same documents.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
