This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 05-12-11 in the presence of Sri V. Venkata Reddy, advocate for complainant and of              Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.74,584/- being the interest on Rs.2,50,000/- @12% p.a., from 03-08-07 to 28-01-10 (for delayed payment) and Rs.10,000/- towards damages besides costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        One Minnakanti Lakshmi Rajyam while working as Elementary School teacher in Vinukonda Mandal married Raghava Rao.   Due to differences with her husband the said Lakshmi Rajyam obtained divorce on 31-10-05 in OP.66/03 on the file of Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.   The said Lakshmi Rajyam also filed MC 6 of 2006 on the file of JMFC, Vinukonda against her husband Raghava Rao for maintenance of her minor son Koushik Chowadary i.e., petitioner herein.   In order to avoid payment of maintenance the said Raghava Rao filed HMG OP 156 of 2006.   Both the petitions were dismissed as infructuous on account of accidental death of the said Lakshmi Rajyam.   During her life time the said Lakshmi Rajyam obtained two insurance policies bearing No.673493428 and 673497205 from the 1^st opposite party.    HMGOP 156/06 and MC 6/06 were dismissed as infructous on account of the death of the said Lakshmi Rajyam.  Subsequently the said Raghava Rao filed OP 180/07 on the file of                        I Addl. District Court, Guntur against the complainant’s maternal grand father to handover the minor Kaushik Chowdary and IA 1459 of 2007 restraining the opposite parties herein and the Government Educational Department from paying death benefits to the claimants or the nominees.   Neither stay nor injunction was granted in IA 1459 of 2007.  One Minnakanti Biragi maternal grand father of the complainant filed OP.283/07 seeking appointment as guardian to the minor.  Both the petitions were disposed off on 10-08-09.  The said Biragi was appointed as guardian of minor complainant. Even after furnishing copy of order in OP.283/07 the opposite party paid Rs.2,50,000/- only being the policy amount.   No interest was paid on the said amount.  When requested for the interest amount the 1^st opposite party on 15-02-10 replied that payment of AB amount was withheld due to restraint order from the I ADC, Guntur in IA 1459 of 2007 in HMGOP 180 of 2007 and as per order of the Hon’ble Court in HMGOP 180 of 2007 and 283 of 2007 dated 10-08-09 payment was made, and no penal interest was payable on the above policies.   The opposite parties failed in its duty of proper service and committed deficiency of service by unduly keeping the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. An amount of Rs.74,584/- towards interest is payable by the opposite parties to the complainant for the delayed payment.   The said Biragi filed CC 201 of 2010 before this Forum for the said amount.  CC 201 of 2001 was dismissed on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    Version cum affidavit of OP2 filed.  OP1 adopted the version of OP2. The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

        The opposite parties have nothing to do with the disputes between the complainant and M. Annapurnamma on one side and             M. Raghava Rao on the other side.  The 1^st opposite party was a party to IA 1459/07 and as such could not proceed in making payment.               In view of pendency of OPs 282/07 and 180/07 on the file of                     1^st Additional District Court the 1^st opposite party could not make payment as it tantamount to a prohibitory order.   The 1^st opposite party paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 28-01-10 as the claimant submitted discharge form on that day only.  The opposite parties paid the amount promptly.   The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute.   The complaint is barred by principles of resjudicata.  The complaint therefore be dismissed as they did not commit any deficiency of service.

4. Exs.A-1 to A-7 and Ex.B-1 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite parties respectively.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation towards mental agony?
4. Whether the complaint is barred by resjudicata?
5. To what relief?

6.  POINT No.4:-   In   M/s. Sivashakthi Builders and another vs. the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and others (W.P.NO. 18735 OF 2008) it was held that Consumer Forums can invoke the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as enumerated u/s 13 (4) of it only.

        Taking a clue from the above decision we are of the view that principles of resjudicata are not applicable to Consumer Forum.   Even otherwise the complainant is different in this complaint and CC 201 of 2010.   For the above discussion we answer this point against the opposite parties.

7.  POINT No.1:-    The complainant herein is a class – I heir of the deceased Minnekanti Lakshmi Rajyam.  The dispute is with regard to the interest payable on the insurance policies of the deceased Lakshmi Rajyam.   Under those circumstances we hold that the complainant is a consumer and there is prima facie dispute to be decided by this Forum.  We therefore answer these points in favour of the complainant.

8.   POINTS 2&3:-   The policy numbers mentioned in Ex.A-3 are different from the policy numbers mentioned in the complaint.  In Ex.A-3 policies the insured is the complainant himself and as such they have no bearing on this case.

          It is the contention of the opposite parties that due to pendency of OPs before the 1^st Additional District Court they could not pay the amount.   The relevant portion in para 7 of the version is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “This opposite party further submits that as per para 6 of petition under I.A.1459/07 HMGOP No.180/07,                    Sri M. Raghava Rao in the said petition before the Hon’ble           1^st Additional District Judge, Guntur I.A.No.1459/07, made the petitioner and Corporation with some other authorities as respondents, seeking direction to restrain payment of money by them to the complainant during the pendency of the petition before the Hon’ble Court.   Accordingly the Branch Manager of this opposite party, Vinukonda was summoned to appear before the Court on 31-08-08.   As the above petition was admitted in the Court, by giving a number, it tentamounts that it is a case fit for trail and to be decided upon the merits of the Hon’ble Court.   As such though the court had not passed any injunction orders restraining the Corporation from making payment to the complainant, the opposite party could not proceed in making payment during the pendency of the case before Court, as it was admitted or trail”.

9.     The above averments clearly revealed that there were no prohibitory orders from paying the amount.  Minnakanti Biragi maternal grand father of the complainant herein ought to have filed a petition before the I Addl. District Court, Guntur seeking a direction to the respondents herein for deposit of amount into Court.   Such step was not taken by the said Biragi during the pendency of OP 283 of 2007 and 180 of 2007.   As rightly contended by them the opposite parties in order to avoid further trouble did not make payment due to pendency of suit.  No doubt the opposite parties ought to have deposited the amount in the I Addl District Court during the pendency of IA 1459 of 2007 in OP 180/07.    Not taking a lenient view in our considered opinion did not amount to deficiency of service.      Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.                   In view of the afore mentioned discussions, these points are answered in favour of the opposite party. 

10.  POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings in the result the complainant is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 13^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:        

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT