1. The Authorised Signatory PNB Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd V/S Mrs. Prabha Bai. K . Deeksha V Rao - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Dakshina Kannada

cc/178/2013

Mrs. Prabha Bai. K . Deeksha V Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Authorised Signatory PNB Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2016

ORDER

Heading1

Heading2

Complaint Case No. cc/178/2013

1. Mrs. Prabha Bai. K . Deeksha V Rao

W/o. Late Vidyadhar Rao D.M Aged 45 years R/at D. No 3. 31, Shubha Griha 4th Cross, Prashanth Nagar Derebail Mangalore D.K. 575008

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. 1. The Authorised Signatory PNB Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai 400051

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Asha Shetty PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE MRS. Lavanya . M. Rai MEMBER

For the Complainant:

For the Opp. Party:

ORDER

BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 31^st MARCH 2016

PRESENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 178/2013

(Admitted on 29.06.2013)

Mrs. Prabha Bai. K. @ Deeksha V Rao

W/o Late Vidyadhar Rao D.M.

Aged 45 years.

R/at D.No. 3-3/1, Shubha Griha

4^th Cross, Prashanth Nagar, Derebail,

Mangalore. D.K. 575 008. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Anil Kumar K.)

VERSUS

1. The Authorized Signatory,

PNB Asset Management Co. Pvt Ltd.,

Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East)

Mumbai 400051.

2. Branch Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

3, Middleton Street, Post Box No. 9229

Kolkata-700071.

3. The Authorized Signatatory,

Karvy computershare Pvt Ltd.,

Mutual Fund Services,

Ground Floor, Mahendra Arcade,

Kodialbail,

Mangalore 575003. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite party No. 1: Sri. Vijay Kumar)

(Advocate for the Opposite party No. 2: Sri. A.L. Shenai)

(Opposite party No. 3 : Ex-parte)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant stated that her husband late Vidyadhar Rao had invested mutual fund by name principal personal tax Saver Fund Vide Account No. 54428801-GG with Opposite Party No. 1, under which unit holder are covered under group personal accident insurance policy bearing policy No. 260501421082000000016, availed by Opposite Party No. 1 for its investors/unit holder from Opposite Party No. 2 and accordingly deceased Mr. Vidyadhar Rao DM was covered under above policy being the unit holder.

It is stated that husband of the complainant Vidyadhar Rao died due to the fatal injuries sustained when he fell from the train while boarding train at Mangalore central railway station dated 08.02.2011. Upon the accidental death of her husband Vidyadhar Rao the complainant being the legal representative of the deceased has submitted the required documents to opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 has forwarded the claim papers to Opposite Party No. 2 but the Opposite Party No. 2 kept on postponing the settlement, but on 11.10.2012 repudiated the claim stating that railway accident happened while crossing the railway track is an offence hence her claim is closed.

It is stated that her husband died in the accident occurred at Mangalore central railway station and without justifiable reasons the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim hence the above complainant filed the complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this FORA to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- i.e. sum assured under the policy along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D. The Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel filed version and Opposite Party No. 3 in-spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case till this date hence we have proceeded Ex-parte as against opposite party No. 3.

The opposite party No. 1 stated that complainant husband late Vidyadhar Rao has invested in mutual fund and said scheme provides special benefit of personal accident and death insurance up to 150 times of number of units held by the investor through the relevant insurance service provider i.e. Opposite Party No. 2.

It is further stated that the role of the Opposite Party is limited the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by Opposite Party No. 2 insurance company for the reasons stated by their repudiation letter. This Opposite party not liable to pay any amount and sought for dismissal of complaint

The Opposite Party No. 2 stated that Mr. Vidyadhar Rao committed suicide which cannot be termed as accident. The claim is not in accordance with the terms of the policy and he is not entitled for any claim. Hence sought for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No. 3 Ex – parte.

III. 1. In support of the complaint, Mrs Prabha Bai. K. @ Deeksha V Rao (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C14. One Sudhin Padhye (RW-1) of Opposite Party No. 1 and one Subramanya Kini (RW-2) of opposite party No. 2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. EX-R-1 were marked for the Opposite Parties.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative

Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.

REASONS

IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) TO (iv): The facts which are admitted is that the complainant husband late Vidyadhar Rao had invested in Mutual funds by name principal personal tax saver vide ACC No. 54428801GG with the 1^st Opposite Party under which the unit holders are covered under group personal accident insurance policy availed by opposite party No. 1 for its investors /unit holders from opposite party No. 2 and accordingly Mr. Vidyadhar Rao covered under the policy as being the unit holder of opposite party No. 1. The said scheme provides Special benefit of personal accident death insurance upto 150 times of number of units held by the investor through the relevant insurance service providers i.e. Opposite Party No.2.

Now the points are in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that complainant contended that her husband late Vidyadhar Rao had invested in mutual fund as mentioned above with Opposite Party No. 1. Under the above policy the unit holders are covered under group personal accident insurance policy with Opposite Party No. 2. Her husband Vidyadhar Rao died due to the fatal injuries sustained when he fell from the train while boarding in M MAQ central Railway station on 08.02.2011. After the accident death the complainant being a legal representative submitted the claim form through Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 2. But Opposite Party No. 2 repudiated claim without there being any valid reasons. Hence came up with this complaint.

The Opposite Parties on the contrary contended that the death of Vidyadar Rao was suicide and hence repudiated the claim of the complainant and contended that he is not entitled.

On perusal of oral and well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that the ExC-1 i.e. statement of account of mutual fund held by deceased Vidyadhar Rao issued by Opposite Party No. 1 wherein it has mentioned that investors are eligible for free accidental death insurance up to 150 times the number of units vide policy. The coverage clause it would clearly show that investors are eligible for free accidental death insurance. Further it shows that initially i.e. at the time of issuance of Ex C-1 policy was with New India Insurance Company and subsequently with Opposite Party No. 2. As per the clause mentioned in the policy would show that the complainant is entitled for the claim under the policy and further the Ex C-5 and Ex C-7 and C-8 i.e. the final report of police inquest report and death intimation would clearly shows that the death of Vidyadhar Rao is not suicide but accidental. The defense taken by Opposite Party No. 2 is not proved by any material piece of evidence. In the absence of the same we hold that the repudiation made by Opposite Party No. 2 is not justifiable which amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1, because there is no contractual obligation on the part of opposite party No.1. Therefore, the complaint against opposite party No. 1 is hereby dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Opposite Party i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to pay the sum assured under the policy i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- Rupees one lakh only) to the complainant along with 10% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 shall pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) i.e. sum assured to the complainant along with 10% interest from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Complaint against opposite party No. 1 is hereby dismissed.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of MARCH 2016)

PRESIDENT MEMBER

(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)

D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum

Mangalore. Mangalore.

ANNEXURE