BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 14th day of December, 2005
C.C No. 123/ 2005
Smt. Y.P.Vijaya Rao, W/0 Late Dr.K.Padmanabha Rao,
Resident of Vijaya Clinic, Bellary Road, Kodumur (V), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank (652), Yemmiganur, Kurnool Dist.
2.The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Kurnool.
3.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Office, No.4 Church Buildings, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.
. . . Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 6.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri. B.Murali Manohar, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A.Hari Haranadha Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1, Sri. Ms.C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2 and 3 and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of complainant is filed Under section 12 of CP Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest from 2.9.2000 till payment, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant’s husband Dr K. Padmanabha Rao opened a Bank account bearing No. SB A/c AGSB – 575 with opposite party No.1 Bank, under “ ABHAYA GOLD” which is organized by opposite party No.2 and 3 company. According to the terms and conditions (Rules of business) No. 7 of SB A/c pass book there is a risk of coverage of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of death of account holder. On 14.2.2000 the complainant’s husband was killed by some miscreants and after investigation the complainant was suspected and the criminal case was ended in acquittal. Thereafter, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 orally the death of her husband and gave written intimation on 2.9.2000 and opposite party No.1 in turn on the same day addressed a letter to opposite party No.2 marking a copy to complainant. The complainant also submits that she has sent a claim form No. 1168 along with FIR and Post Mortem Certificate to opposite party No.3, claiming for payment of insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. To the dismay of the complainant the opposite party No.3 failed to respond nor settled the claim inspite of several letters, being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dt 7.9.2004 and the same was received by opposite party but failed to settle the claim which amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has resorted to Forum for redressal.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) legal notice dt 7.9.2004 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party along with postal receipt and postal acknowledgement and (2) Abhaya Gold savings pass book of deceased Dr K. Padmanabha Rao, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 and A.2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsels and contested the case by filing separate written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that the complaint averments are not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the complainant’s husband K. Padmanabha Rao has opened a SB A/c No. AGSB 575 and alleges that the complainant has to prove that she is the lone legal heir to the deceased with satisfactory evidence and also submits that the complainant ought to have filed a succession certificate for considering her entitleness. It further alleges that to known whether the state has filed an appeal or not, it is necessary to make state as a party to proceedings, hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of state as party. The Sec. 25 of Hindu Succession Act says a person responsible for death of a Hindu cannot succeed to his estate, therefore, it is an objection and lastly submits that the complainant in her complaint averments stated that on 2.9.2000 the complainant gave written intimation to opposite party No.1 and in turn opposite party No.1 on the same day addressed a letter to opposite party No.2 and the complainant her self sent claim form No. 1168 directly to opposite party No.3, therefore opposite party No.1 has nothing to do and there is no deficiency on part of opposite party No.1 towards the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that it has nothing to do with the allegations mentioned in the complaint averments and there is no deficiency on their part. It neither received the claim form from the complainant or from the opposite party No.1 and no cause of action is made against opposite party No.2, hence, seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
7. The written version of opposite party No.3 submits that they learned about the murder of the complainant’s husband only after receipt of Court Summons. The Criminal record reveals that prior to the murder of the deceased there were difference between the complainant and the deceased and the concerned police S.H.O. Halaharvi Police Station registered a case against the wife of the deceased and others and complainant was figured as accused No.1, but the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Kurnool acquitted all the accused. The acquittal in Criminal case cannot be taken into consideration in deciding the complaint before this Forum as the prime accused is not entitled for the reliefs as the death of the deceased is not accidental.
8. It also submits that the complainant violation terms and conditions of the policy by suppressing the true facts and not intimating the murder and her involvement within the stipulated time and as such she is not entitled to claim amount. The complainant in her complaint averments submits that she has intimated to opposite party No.1 orally and on 2.9.2000 but there is no basis. As per condition No. 8 of the policy the complainant has to intimate the fact of the death of the assured within the stipulated time (i.e. within 90 days), hence there are latches on part of complainant.
9. It lastly submits that the complainant has not given any opportunity either to repudiate the claim or to reply and also submits that they never received any letter or any claim form No. 1168 from the complainant and hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
10. The opposite party No.3 in support of their case filed the following documents Viz (1) Group Personal Accident policy No. 50400/ 42/03/ 16/ 277/99 and (2) Abhaya Gold Group Personal Accident Policy Agreement, besides to the sworn affidavits of opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3, and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 and B.2 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
11. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
12. It is the case of the complainant that her husband Dr K. Padmanabha Rao has opened a SB A/c No. AGSB- 575 with opposite party No.1 Bank under Abhaya Gold Scheme of opposite party No.2 and 3 and the said account holder was murdered on 14.2.2004 by some miscreants and the complainant was made accused No.1 and was acquitted by I Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool. The complainant alleges that she informed opposite party No.1 Bank orally and on 2.9.2000 through her letter about the death of her husband and the opposite party No.1 Bank on the same day intimated to opposite party No.3 about the death of account holder. The complainant also alleges that she sent a claim form No. 1168 to opposite party No.3 along with FIR and death certificate, but as against to it the opposite party No.3 (Insurance Company) in its written version averments in para 6 denies that it never received any letter or any claim form No. 1168 from the complainant for consideration under the Abhaya Gold Scheme and alleges that there is no deficiency on their part. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the written version of opposite parties it is said that they have not received any claim form No. 1168, the said statement of complainant i.e. submitting claim form No. 1168 to opposite parties not only remains highly in consistence but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the complainant in that regard. Therefore, what follows is that the complainant did not submit claim form No. 1168 to opposite party No.3 and hence there appears every bonafidies of the opposite party in their hesitation on the said grievances and thereby there is no deficiency of service on their part in that regard.
13. When the opposite party No.3 denies the receipt of any claim form from the complainant, the onus is shifted to the complainant to prove that claim form has been sent to opposite party No.3. But the complainant failed to place any such cogent substantiating material in substantiating the said contentions. The complainant’s sides filed Ex A.1 legal notice dt 7.9.2004 along with postal receipt and postal acknowledgement, this notice is served on opposite party No.3 after four and Half years after the death of deceased. The Ex A.2 is the Pass Book of Abhaya Gold of the deceased, the facts borne in above two exhibits doesn’t support the contention of the complainant that claim form No.1168 has been sent to opposite party No.3. Hence, from the above it is clear that no material is placed on record by the complainant as to the submitting of claim form to opposite party No.3 for claiming insured amount under Abhaya Gold Scheme. Hence, there appears no deficiency of service on opposite party No.3 sides towards the complainant.
14. The opposite party No.1 in its written version has taken several unnecessary pleas such as the complainant has to prove that she alone is the legal heir of the deceased and advising the complainant that she ought to have filed a succession certificate and state must be made a party, these pleas are to taken when there is an obligation on opposite party No.1 to pay assured amount to the complainant. Hence, the above pleas of opposite party No.1 appears as plea for plea sake without any substantiation material.
15. The opposite party No.3 in support of their case relied on the following decision of AP State Commission, between Smt P. Prabhavathi Vs National Insurance Company Ltd, reported in (2004) 7 CLD Page 585, where in it was held that where condition of Insurance is violated i.e. neither information of death was furnished to Insurance Company within 14 days nor Postmortem examination was conducted, no claim would be entertained and the procedure prescribed under the policy conditions was mandatory and not merely directive and the other decision of High Court of Patna reported in (2004) 8 CLD Page 884 which has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case.
16. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above and following the afore mentioned decision of our State Commission, as there appears neither any bonafidies and merits in the contentions of the complainant nor any deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.3 making the latter liable for the claim made. The complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought and hence the case of the complainant is dismissed.
17. In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 14th day of December, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Legal notice, Dt.7-9-2004, along with speed post – Receipt &
Acknowledgement by complainant counsel to opposite party No.3
Ex.A2 Original Abhaya Gold Savings Pass book, Yemmiganur
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Group Personal Accident Policy No.50400/42/03/16/277/99.
Ex.B2 Abhaya Gold Group Personal Accident Policy Agreement.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri. B.Murali Manohar, Advocate, Kurnool
2.Sri. A.Hari Haranadha Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool
3.Sri. Ms C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
