BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H. Prasad B.A.LL.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 27th day of September, 2007
C.C.No.64/2007
Smt. N. Saraswathi Devi, W/o. Late C. Chakrapani, Junior Assistant in District Treasury Office,
R/o. D.No. 78/8A-12-2-116 A, Vital Nagar, Kurnool. . … Complainant
Versus
1. L.I.C. of India, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Kurnool.
2. L.I.C. of India, Represented by its Divisional Manager,
College Road, Kadapa.
… Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. C. Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri.A.V. Subramanayam, Advocate, Kurnool opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon persuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
C.C.No 64/2007
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act 1986, seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs. 3 lakhs from 4.12.2000 to 24.1.2004, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards cost 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’s case is that the Complainant is the wife of late C.Chakrapani who insured his life with opposite parties for Rs.3 lakhs with accidental benefit, under policy bearing No.65150319 and nominated the complainant as his nominee. In case of accidental death the opposite parties have to pay the assured amount and accidental benefit with bonus. The insured was murdered on 23.7.99 which is an accidental death. Immediately, the complainant submitted all documents to opposite party No.1 to pay the amount under the said policy. But the opposite parties paid the assured amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 4.12.2000 satisfying the insured death was due to murder. As the accidental benefit was not paid the complainant requested to opposite party No.1 to settle the accidental benefit and the opposite parties paid the accidental benefit of Rs.3 lakhs on 23.1.2004, after gap of 3 years, without paying the interest there on. As the complainant was badly in need of amount due to financial problems accepted the said sum under oral protest. The non settlement of claim of the complainant with in reasonable time amounts to deficiency of service.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) letter dated 3.3.2006 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.1, (2) reply letter dated 20.3.2006 of opposite party No.1 to complainant, (3) letter dated 26.8.2000 of opposite party No.1 to complainant and (4) reply letter dated 6.11.2000 of complainant to opposite party No.1, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint avenments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.2 and replied to the interrogatories of opposite parties.
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 contested the case . The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased C. Chakrapani taking a policy bearing No.6515013019 on his life for the sum of Rs.3 lakhs with accidental benefit by nominating the complainant as his nominee. It also admits the complainant informing the Opposite party No.2 on 10.7.2000.that her husband was murdered on 26.7.1999 by one G.Jayalakshmi and others and submitted all required documents on 6.11.2000. The opposite parties paid the basic sum assured of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant, as the cause of death of the life assured was murder i.e., natural death and the case is pending before the court of law. The opposite party No.2 called for final judgment copy for settling the accidental benefit under policy. On 18.11.2003 the opposite parties received a letter dated nil from the complainant stating that the State Government after satisfying about the death of her husband, on compassionate grounds appointed her as Junior Assistant and submitted case sheet filed by police which states that her husband died of murder which comes under accident. Hence, the opposite party No.2 on compassionate grounds and on verification of police records settled the accidental benefit claim on 23.1.2004 for Rs.3 lakhs and paid the said amount to the complainant under full and final satisfaction of the claim and obtained discharge form to said effect. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and no question of payment of interest to the complainant arises and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) letter dated nil of complainant to opposite party No.2 received on 18.11.2004 and (2) discharge form of complainant in form No.3801 dated 23.1.2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of their written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 & A2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and replied to the interrogatories of complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
8. It is the case of the complainant that she is the wife and nominee of
C. Chakrapani who insured his life under policy bearing No.63150139 with accidental benefit. The insured was murdered on 23.7.1999 and the complainant submitted all necessary documents on 6.11.2000 and the opposite parties paid the basic sum assured on 24.11.2000. Thereafter, the complainant addressed a letter dated nil received by opposite parties on 18.11.2003 stating that the State Government appointed her on compassionate grounds and submitted charge sheet filed by police, which
says that the insured was murdered and case is pending before the court. Hence, considering the request of the complainant, the opposite parties settled the accidental benefit for Rs.3,00,000/- and paid the said amount to the complainant as full and final settlement on 23.1.2004.
9. The opposite parties submitted that the required documents for settling the accidental claim was placed before them on 18.11.2003 vide Ex.B1 and the claim amount was paid on 23.1.2004 . But the complainant submits that at the time payment of basic sum assured on 24.11.2000 the opposite parties received Ex.A4 dated 6.11.2000 & were satisfied that the insured was murdered, but delayed in payment of accidental benefit to the complainant.
10. The Ex.A4 says that the State Government appointed the complainant considering her case on compassionate grounds, but no other material is filed to consider accidental benefit of her husband. From the above what remains clear is that no required material was placed before the opposite parties except Ex.A4 at the time of payment of basic assured amount as to the death of insured as accidental and the required material was put forth before the opposite parties vide Ex.B1 dated nil received by opposite parties on 18.11.2003.The Ex.B1 says that the complainant was given appointment on compassionate grounds and the complainant herewith enclosing a chemical Analysis Report. Thus basing on Ex. B1 and other records placed by the complainant, the opposite parties settled the accidental benefit claim to the complainant on 24.1.2004, thus there is a delay of 2 months and 6 days from the date of submitting required material till the payment of accidental benefit.
11. Hence, the delay is on part of opposite parties in settling the accidental claim. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest to the said delayed period only.
12. The complainant in support of his case relied on the decisions reported in (i) 1993 (3) CPR Pg 438, (ii) 1993 (3) CPR Pg 179, (iii) 1993 (2) CPR Pg 115 , (iv) 2002 (2) CPR Pg 291 & (v) 2001 ACJ Pg 1834 are having little relevancy for its appreciation in this case. The decision relied by opposite parties reported in (III) 2007 Pg 433 CPJ, held that when discharge vouchers are executed voluntarily and when there is no complaint that the said vouchers are executed under fraud, undue influence, the complainant can not turn, after receipt of said payment. In the present case also the complainant executed discharge voucher for payment of accidental benefit but and she has not alleging that she executed the said voucher under fraud or misrepresentation as per the above decision of N.C. Hence, the opposite parties cannot rely on the above decision. In this case the complainant alleges delay in settling the accidental claim only. Therefore , the complainant is remaining entitled to interest only for the delayed period from 19.11.03 to 24.1.2004.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant interest @ of 9% per annum from
19.11.2003 to 24.1.2004 on Rs.3,00,000/- along with costs of Rs.2,000/- with in a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount with 12 % interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and prounced by us in the open bench this the 27th day of September,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. Letter, dated 03.3.2006 of complainant to
Opposite party No.1.
]
Ex.A2. Reply letter, dated 20.3.2006 of
Opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 26.8.2000 of opposite party No.1
addressed to complainant.
Ex.A4. Reply letter, dated 6.11.2000 of
Complainant to opposite party No.1
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Letter, dated nil of complainant to
Opposite party No.2 received on
18.11.2003.
Ex.B2. Discharge form of complainant in Form
No.3801, dated 23.1.2004 executed by
Complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.C. Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.A.V. Subramanayam, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
