Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/112/2015

Maramreddy Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o Turupathi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India - Opp.Party(s)

MD.Rahim Khan, V.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

17 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

 

Date of Filing     :14-12-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:17-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the 17^th  day of   OCTOBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.112/2015

 

Maramreddy Srinivasulu Reddy,

S/o.Tirupathi Reddy,

Hindu, Aged about 50 years,

Muthyalapadu Village,

Palicherlavaripalem Post,

Chillakur Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                                    ..… Complainant   

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	The Branch Manger, L.I.C. of India, Branch Office, K.S.Reddy Buildings, Sri Shiridisai Nagar, Near RTC Bus-stand, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.
2.	Marupuru Siva Ganaiah, S/o.M. Krishnaiah, LIC Agent, Thippavarapadu Village & Post, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.                                                      ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Sri Md. Rahimkhan, advocates for the complainant and Sri A.V. Muralikrishna, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and                       Sri G. Stalin Babu and Sri G. Srinivasulu, advocates for                                                         the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

            The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 to direct them to pay Rs.8,00,000/-  towards the sum assured with accidental  benefits  and other benefits  with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till date of realization, Rs.50,000/-  towards damages for causing mental agony  and Rs.5,000/-  towards costs of the complaint  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

           2.     The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

            The complainant respectfully submits that attracted by the wide publicity of the opposite parties and believing  their promises and assurance of Life Risk Coverage   under insurance policies, the complainant’s  son i.e., Maramreddy Mohan Reddy while he was alive  obtained New Jeevan Anand (With profits) LIC  Insurance policy bearing No.846120295  under plan and term 815-21-21  for sum  assured of Rs.4,00,000/-  with accidental benefits ofRs.4,00,000/-.  Opposite party No.1 issued  insurance policy through opposite party No.2 to the complainant’s son.  As per the terms  of the policy, the complainant’s son has to pay the  premium either by way of cash or cheque half-yearly.  The policy is commenced from 28-07-2014 which matures on 28-07-2035  or if risk arises, whichever is earlier.  The complainant’s  son  paid first premium for Rs.11,134/- on 30-07-2014 by way of cash and second premium for Rs.11,134/- by way of cheque bearing No.952006 dated 21-01-2015, on 21-01-2015  itself to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2.  The  complainant, who is the father of the said Maramreddy Mohan Reddy (insured) is the nominee to the said policy.  While so the complainant’s son while going on his Honda Dream Yuga vehicle AP 26 AU 4088,  suddenly met with a road accident and died on the spot on 03-03-2015 at                   00.45 hours near Sabina Factory.   A case under FIR No.38/2015  on the file of Chillakur Police Station  was registered. Post Mortem and Inquest was conducted on the body.

          The complainant  further submits that the complainant is the nominee, he submitted application dated 04-03-2015 intimating the death of the insured and requested  to pay the insurance  claim amount, since the policy is in force and the complainant is entitled to receive the death  benefits of the said policy.  As no reply was received, the complainant personally approached opposite party No.1 and requested to pay the claim amount but opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to submit application along with original LIC bond, FIR  and other documents along with claim form.  So the complainant submitted application                         dated 29-04-2015  along with original LIC   bond, claim form and other required attested  copies of  documents to opposite party No.1. Inspite of several approaches and requests, both the opposite parties did not choose to pay the claim amount so far.

           The complainant further submits that it is the  legal and bounden duty of the opposite parties to pay the insurance claim  amount  immediately as and when the claim is submitted.  But inspite of several approaches and requests both  the opposite parties did not choose to pay the claim amount.

 

          The complainant further submits  that believing the promises and assurances  of the opposite parties, the complainant’s son took the said insurance policy with a great hope that the insurance amount will protect his family members in the event of sudden life risk arises.  But  all his hopes  are in vain due to non-payment of insurance claim amount so far, without any valid reason.  So  vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued legal notice dated 30-11-2015  to both the opposite parties .  Having  received the same the  opposite parties even did not choose to give any reply or comply  with the demand of the complainant and kept   quiet.  The acts of opposite parties in not paying the insurance claim so far clearly constitutes their sheer negligence and deficiency in service.  Due to that the complainant and his family members suffered lot of financial loss, mental agony and hardship.  For which the opposite parties are not only liable to pay the insurance claim amount immediately with interest thereon but also liable  to pay damages to the complainant  and hence submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

           3.   The opposite party No.1 filed written version with the following averments that:-

          The opposite party No.1 submits that  the opposite party No.1 issued the policy bearing No.846120295  on the life of M. Mohan Reddy for sum assured of Rs.4,00,000/-  with accidental benefit of Rs.4,00,000/- that the said policy commenced from 28-07-2014  that he paid first premium for
Rs.10,800/-  on 30-07-2014  that the complainant is nominee, that premium has to pay half yearly, that the life assured has died on 03-03-2015  as intimated in this complaint.

            The opposite party No.1 submits that as per the terms ad conditions of the said policy the   life assured has to pay second premium (half yearly) on or before              28-01-2015  or within grace period of  30 days i.e., 28-02-2015.  The  L.A.  did not pay premium even within the grace period.  Thus the said policy was in lapsed condition by 28-02-2015  prior to the date of death of L.A. i.e., on 03-03-2015.

 

             The opposite party No.1 submits that as seen from the “Status Report of policy” and “History of Premium Transaction”   clearly reveals that second premium paid by cash on 11-03-2015 i.e., after the death of the deceased / L.A. who died  on 03-03-2015.

              The opposite party No.1 submits that with regard to second premium the alleged said cheque transaction dated 21-01-2015 was in between the deceased / L.A.  and the second opposite party who LIC agent was false and fabricated  and specifically denied by this  opposite party, it was created  one as there was lot of variation in signatures of the deceased / LA.  Contained in the alleged cheque and proposal form and as it was  not personally issued,  and further the opposite party No.1 obtained with regard to “Funds” of the  alleged cheque in the account of the   LA. / deceased from the S.B.I. Gudur Branch, it also reveals that since issuance of cheque (21-01-2015) i.e., from 04-06-2014 no balance was found in the said account no transaction took place.  The premium was paid by cash but not by way of  cheque on 11-03-2015.

               The opposite party  No.1 submitted that complainant colluding with the agent, who is second opposite party, paid the premium  on 11-03-2015 by cash after the death of the L.A. by not  disclosing the material fact of death.  As  per the LIC (Agents) Rules, 1981 and the LIC (Agents) Regulations, 1972 the agents are not  authorized to collect the premium on behalf of the LIC of India.  The opposite party  pertinently submits  that he has not to given any authorization to the second opposite party / agent to collect any premium on his behalf.  Hence the  second premium paid after the death of the L.A. the said policy was in lapsed condition.  Hence as per the   terms and conditions  (2^nd condition)  of policy nothing is payable as premium not paid within grace  period.  The intimation of  death of the L.A. dated 04-03-2015 very next day to L.I.C.  of India was utterly false and the complainant  was not issued any claim form by our Gudur Branch on the same was intimated by our Gudur Branch vide Regd. Letter dated 09-12-2015.

             The opposite party No.1 properly  repudiated the claim of the complainant immediately on 09-12-2015  by sent a letter to his notice                                           dated 30-11-2015 which was sent on 01-12-2015  as per postal receipt.  As stated  above this opposite party is not liable to pay  amount due under the said policy and submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

           4.     The opposite party No.2 filed written version with the following averments:-

            The opposite party No.2 respectfully submitted  that the opposite party No.2 is an authorized   agent of opposite party No.1 bearing agent No.1303716  and giving  business to the  opposite party No.1 by canvassing the LIC  policies to the public and also collecting proposal  forms and premium  amounts from the LIC policy holders who was canvassed  by the opposite party  No.2 and remitting the same to the opposite party No.1 as a part of service of business and eaking out his livelihood  from the commission given  by the opposite party No.1 as per the insurance policies canvassed  and amounts  collected by the opposite party No.2 and remitting the same to opposite party No.1.

           The opposite party No.2  further submitted that as per canvass of the opposite party No.2 one M. Mohan Reddy took insurance policy bearing No.846120295  under  proposal dated 30-07-2014 for sum assured Rs.4,00,000/- with accidental benefit.

            The opposite party No.2 further submitted that on 21-01-2015  the insured i.e., M. Mohan Reddy issued cheque bearing No.952006  for Rs.11,134/-  in favour of the LIC towards the premium of the said policy and handed over the same to the opposite party No.2, to remit the same in to the  opposite party  No.1 insurance company.  But on the same day, daughter of the opposite party No.2  fell severe health problem and was hospitalized  and during that course, the said cheque was misplaced and not  find out.  So, on 22-01-2015, the opposite party No.2 again approached the said Mohan Reddy and stated the said fact and requested to issue fresh cheque.  But the said M. Mohan Reddy gave cash in lieu of the lost cheque and requested the opposite party No.2 to remit the said amount towards his LIC  premium due immediately.  But in view of deterioration of health  of the daughter of the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 along with his daughter and wife  immediately went to Chennai for better treatment  and after return from Chennai, on 11-03-2015 the opposite party No.2 remitted the said premium amount by way of cash into the  opposite party No.1 cash counter.

           The opposite party No.2 submit that there is no collusion with the complainant in remitting the premium belatedly as alleged by opposite party No.1.

            The opposite party No.2  is not known about the  death of the  insured i.e., M. Mohan Reddy till  the date of receipt of notice from this Forum.  The opposite party No.2 remitted the said premium amount relating to this customer as usual, i.e., on 11-03-2015, though the said amount   was collected from the customer on 22-01-2015, due to the reason that this opposite party No.2  went to Chennai for better treatment to her daughter and there is no willful latches on the part of the opposite party No.2 in remitting the said amount belatedly  and submits to dismiss the complaint  against the opposite  party No.2 with costs.

          5.       On behalf of the complainant P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10.

 

          6.      On  behalf of the opposite party No.1, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B9 marked.   On behalf of opposite party No.2,  R.W.2 was examined  and  documents were filed.

          7.        On behalf of the complainant , written arguments not  filed.

 

          8.        On behalf of opposite party No.1 written arguments filed and on behalf of the opposite party No.2 no written arguments filed.

 

          9.      Arguments on behalf of  learned counsels for both parties heard.

 

          10.    Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of  the opposite                party No.1.

 

          11.     Now the point for consideration are :

          (1)     Whether the complaint filed by the complainant under Section-12 of

                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986  alleging deficiency of service against

                     the opposite party No.1 is maintainable?

          (2)      Whether the complaint filed by the complainant  against  the opposite

                      party No.2 is maintainable?

          (3)       To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

          12.  POINT No.1: The learned counsel for the complainant  submits by relying upon the decisions reported in  Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC).  In Sambathina Ramu Vs.  T. Srinivasulu and another reported in 2009 ACJ 187 (A.P.).  In Syed Ibrahim Vs. United India and another reported in 2005 ACJ 588 (A.P.) and   in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Shobha Rani  Shah  on the file of Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in F.A.No.27/2008

and by relying  upon evidence of P.W.1   and Exs.A1 toA10 that the son of the  complainant during  his  life time obtained New Jeevan Anand (with profits)  LIC insurance policy bearing No.846120295 under plan  term  815-21-21  for sum assured of Rs.4,00,000/-   with opposite party  and the son of the complainant paid premium Rs.11,134/-  on 30-072014  by way of cash and subsequently, the son of the complainant gave cheque to the opposite party No.2 for the payment of the premium amount and later   the son of the complainant died in an accident which took place on 03-03-2015 and after death of the son of the complainant, the complainant   informed the same to the opposite party   No.1 for payment of the death benefits of the son of the complainant but the opposite party No.1 failed to pay the amount under Ex.A1 policy and  inspite of issuing of legal notice as opposite parties failed to pay the due amount under Ex.A1 policy.  The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the payment   of the due amount under Ex.A1 policy and submits to allow the complaint with costs and  further submits  that under Contract Act, the opposite party No.2, who is the  agent of opposite party No.1  is liable  to pay Ex.A1 policy   amount as opposite party No.2 is authorized to collect the premium from the insured and hence  he submits to allow the complaint with costs.

           On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 submits that the son of the complainant paid the 1^st premium only on 30-07-2014 and failed to pay the subsequent  premium and hence as the policy  was  lapsed, the complainant is not entitled for  the  death benefits of his son as no premium was  paid  hence  he submits  that the complaint filed by the complainant against opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and submits for the dismissal  of the complaint.

          The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the son of the complainant gave cheque to the opposite party No.2 towards the  premium of the instalments amount but as the  daughter of the  opposite party No.2  fell ill-health, the opposite party No.2  did not  paid the premium to the opposite party No.1 and hence he submits that as the opposite party No.2 is the agent  of  opposite party No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

          In view of the arguments submitted by the  opposite party No.1 and as  seen from the evidence of the  both  parties, it is an admitted fact that  the son of the complainant took policy bearing No.846120295  under plan and  term 815-21-21 for sum  assured of Rs.4,00,000/- with accidental benefits of Rs.4,00,000/-. Complainant  paid premium on 30-07-2014 and the son of the complainant   has to pay the premium on 21-01-2015 but the complainant son   failed to pay the premium amount  inspite  of passing of  grace period and the said policy was lapsed as premium was not paid.  The contention of the complainant is that the son of the complainant issued Ex.A3  cheque bearing No.952006, dated 21-01-2015 for Rs.11,134/-  towards the premium amount of the son of the complainant but the opposite party No.2 who is the  agent did not  remit the said cheque or he did not pay  any payment towards  the premium of the policy  of the deceased who is the  son of the complainant.  As no premium was paid on behalf of the   son of the complainant, the policy was lapsed.

             Though the learned counsel for the  complainant submits that the opposite party No.2 who is the agent of the opposite party No.1 and he collected premium.  We are of the opinion that agent is not  authorized to collect premium

 

In LIC of India Vs. Anuradha  reported in 2012 (3) CPJ 12 (SC)

          Wherein the Hon’ble  Apex Court held as follows:  “In order to  successfully  maintained a claim for benefit under insurance policy, the policy   should even  kept alive  by punctual payment of  premiums until the claim was  made.  All that could be paid to the  claimants was only the paid up value of the policy”.

 

In Harshadrai J. Shah  Vs. Life Insurance Corporation reported in 1997 (3) CPJ 9 (SC) =  1997 (5) SCC 64.

            Wherein Apex court held as follows:  “ A general agent  of LIC has no  express or implied authority under Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 or  rules and regulations there under to collect premium from the  insured”.  The payment to him cannot be  regarded as payment to the insurer.

          The Hon’ble Apex Court held   that in accordance with the  LIC  (Agents) Rules, 1981 and the LIC (Agents) Regulations, 1972, the agent was not  competent  to accept the premium on behalf of  the LIC, unless  he was only duly authorized, by the LIC to do so.

           By relying  upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.2  is the agent   was not authorized to collect premium from the son of the complainant.

           Admittedly the policy was lapsed because of non-payment of premium by the son of the complainant.

In Sushila Devi Vs. L.I.C. of India reported in I (2016) CPJ 351 (NC).

In L.I.C. of India and others Vs. Neelamma reported in III (2013) CPJ 610 (NC) and

In Asha Garg & others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation reported in  V (2009) CPJ 92 (NC).

          Wherein   the Hon’ble National Commission held that when there is no payment of premium repudiation  is justified when the insured failed to pay the amount within  grace period. 

           By relying upon  the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the payment of the cheque  by the son of the complainant to the opposite party is against the rules and regulations of Life Insurance Corporation of India and the opposite party No.2 is  not authorized to collect the premium amount from the insured.

          The learned counsel for the complainant   submits as the opposite party No.2 is the agent of opposite party No.1, the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2  is joint about the payment of the Ex.A1 policy amount .  But as discussed above, the opposite party No.2 is not authorized to collect the premium from the  son of the complainant and he is not  the proper person to collect the premium.  By relying upon rules  under LIC (Agents Rules, 1981) and the LIC  (Agents) Regulation, 1972).  The opposite party No.2 was  not authorized to collect the premium from the son of the complainant.  In view of the above said fact,  the contention of the opposite party  No.2  that the son of the complainant handed over the cheque to the opposite party No.2 and due to his personal inconvenience, he could not pay  the premium to the opposite party No.1 cannot be accepted as opposite party No.2 is not the authorized  agent on behalf of the opposite party No.1.   Hence as the policy is lapsed on the ground of non-payment of premium, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the  complainant against the opposite party No.1 is not maintainable and the same  has to be dismissed.

          The learned counsel for the  complainant submits by relying upon the decisions reported  in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others reported in 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC).  In Sambathina Ramu Vs.  T. Srinivasulu and another reported in 2009 ACJ 187 (A.P.).  In Syed Ibrahim Vs. United India and another reported in 2005 ACJ 588 (A.P.) and in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Shobha Rani  Shah  on the file of Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in F.A.No.27/2008 and submits that  as the opposite party No.2 is an agent  of opposite  party No.1.  Both the opposite parties 1 and 2  are liable to pay the amount to the complainant and submits  to  allow the complaint with costs.  But the facts in the decisions submitted by the learned counsel for the  complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case  as the said decisions arises  about joint tortfeasors.

          By relying   upon the above  decisions and discussion , we answer this point   against the complainant and in favour of  the  opposite party No.1 only.  

          13.POINT No.2:The learned  counsel for the  complainant submits that the opposite party No.2 is the authorized agent  on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and hence the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is joint for the payment of the due amount under the policy  and submits to allow the complaint with costs.  The evidence  of opposite party No.2 (R.W.2)  reads  as follows:   

“ I further  submit that  on 21-01-2015 the insured i.e.,               M. Mohan Reddy issued cheque bearing No.952006 for Rs.11,134/- in favour of the LIC towards the premium of the said policy and handed over the same to me, to remit the same in to the opposite party No.1 insurance company.  But on the same day, my daughter  fell severe health problem and was hospitalised and during  that course, the said cheque was misplaced and not find out.  So, on 22-01-2015, I again  approached the said Mohan Reddy and stated the said fact and requested to issue fresh cheque.  But the said M. Mohan Reddy gave cash in lieu of the lost cheque and requested me to remit the said amount towards his LIC premium due immediately.  But in view of deterioration of health of my  daughter, I along with my daughter and wife immediately went to Chennai for better treatment and after return  from Chennai, on 11-03-2015 I have remitted the said premium amount by way of cash into the opposite party No.1 cash counter.           I further submit that there is no collusion  with the complainant in remitting the premium belatedly as alleged by opposite party No.1.           I further submit that I have not known about the death of the insured i.e., M. Mohan Reddy till the date of receipt of notice  from this Forum.  This  opposite party No.2 remitted the said premium amount relating to this customer as usual, i.e., on 11-03-2015, though the said amount was collected from the customer on 22-01-2015,  due to the  reason that this opposite party 2  went to Chennai for better treatment to my daughter and there is no willful latches on my part in remitting  the said amount belatedly.”

 

          As the opposite party No.1 is admitting about the  receiving of cheque but he did not remit the same and as he was  not authorized to collect  the premium from the insured and by relying upon the above decisions as the agent is not authorized  to collect the premium from the insurer hence, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party No.2 (agent) has to be  allowed.

          In view of the above said facts, we answer this point in favour of the complainant and against  the opposite party No.2 only.

 

         14. POINT No.3:  In view of our answering   on point No.1 against the  complainant and in favour of the opposite party No.1 and in view of our answering on point No.2 in favour of the complainant  and against  the opposite party No.2,  the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed partly.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., from 14-12-2015 till the date of the realization.

         The complainant was also awarded damages of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) against the opposite party No.2 for causing mental agony to the complainant.

          The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards the  costs of the litigation. 

           The complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed without costs.

           The  opposite party No.2 was granted 30 days  time to comply the order on communication of order.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  17^th day of  OCTOBER, 2017.

 

            Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

                                       APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

31-08-2017

Sri Maramreddy Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o.Tirupathi Reddy, SPSR Nellore District ( Deposition affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -	07-11-2016	Sri S. Raghunath, S/o.S. Sreerama Sarma, Working as Administrative Officer, D.O. LIC of India, Nellore (Chief affidavit filed).
R.W.2  -	19-09-2016	Sri Marupuru Siva Ganaiah, S/o.Krishnaiah, LIC Agent by profession, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District.(Deposition affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Photostat  copy of policy No.846120295 in favour of  deceased Maramreddy Mohan Reddy issued  by the opposite party.
Ex.A2  -	30-07-2014	Photostat copy of First Premium Receipt paid by the  deceased  Maramrededy Mohan Reddy  for Rs.11,134/-.
Ex.A3 -	-	Photostat copy of  Acknowledgement /  Receipt dated 21-01-2015 for Rs.11,134/- issued by the  opposite party No.2 and  Cheque bearing No.952006                dated 21-01-2015 for Rs.11,134/- issued by the  M. Mohan Reddy.
Ex.A4  -	-	Photostat copy of First Information Report No.38/2015 dated 03-03-2015 in Chillakur P.S.
Ex.A5  -	-	Photostat copy of Post-Mortem Certificate in favour of Mohan Reddy.
Ex.A6  -	03-03-2015	Photostat copy of Inquest Report.
Ex.A7  -	17-03-2015	Photostat copy of Death Certificate in the name of Maramreddy Mohan Reddy.
Ex.A8  -	04-03-2015	Photostat copy of Death Intimation by the complainant.
Ex.A9  -	29-04-2015	Photostat  copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.
Ex.A10 -	30-11-2015	Legal notice from  complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties alongwith registered post receipt.

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

Ex.B1  -	-	Attested copy of policy No.846120295 in favour of  deceased Maramreddy Mohan Reddy issued  by the opposite party.
Ex.B2  -	-	Attested copy of Proposal form in favour of  Maramreddy Srinivasulu Reddy.
Ex.B3  -	09-12-2015	Attested copy of letter from opposite party No.1 to the  complainant’s advocate.
Ex.B4  -	-	Attested copy of History of Premium Transaction in  favour of Maramreddy Mohan Reddy.
Ex.B5  -	-	Attested copy of Life Insurance  Corporation of India (Agents)Regulations, 1972.
Ex.B6  -	12-01-2016	Photostat copy of Statement of Account from                  01-04-2014 to 31-03-2015.
Ex.B7  -	-	Photostat copies of Statement of Account  from                01-04-2014 to 31-03-2015  and  01-04-2014 to                  31-03-2015 in favour of  Mohanreddy Maramreddy  issued by State Bank of India, Gudur.
Ex.B8  -	25-06-2005	Letter from opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2.
Ex.B9  -	13-07-2015	Letter of Appointment  in SL.No.84201501745 issued on behalf of opposite party No.1.

                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                             PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri V. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Sri Md. Rahimkhan, Advocates,                       D.No.23-1-906, 1st Cross Road, (C.A.M.Compound) Ramesh Reddy Nagar, S.P.S.R.Nellore-524 003.
2.	Sri A.V. Murali Krishna, Advocate, 26/1/400, B.V.Nagar, A.K.Nagar (P.O.), Nellore.
3.	Sri G. Stalin Babu and Sri G. Srinivasulu, Advocates, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: