BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LLB., Member
Thursday the 8th day of April, 2004
CD No. 124/2003
P. Lakshmi Devamma,
W/o. Late P. Chandra Shekar Reddy,
Aged 42 years, Nannoor (V),
Orvakal (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
counsel Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy.
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,
Kurnool. . . Opposite party No.1 represented by
his counsel Sri V. Victor Augustine
2. The Primary Agriculture Co-operative
Credit Society, P.No. 842,
Nannoor (V), Orvakal (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
The CD complaint of the complainant is field under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction against the opposite party No.1 to pay her Rs.1.00 lakh as compensation for non performing of service or deficiency of service, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs of the complaint and the above policy amount with interest at 12% per annum till the date of realization.
The case of the complainant is that her late husband P. Chandra Shekar Reddy has taken a Janta Personal Accident Insurance Group Policy through opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 covering with insurance policy for assured amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on accidental death. The complainant’s husband P. Chandra Shekar was murdered on 28.8.2000 and the said fact was informed by opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1 and the latter making a claim application for insurance amount from the opposite party No.1 was rejected on the reason that the claim is not maintainable as the death was due to past rivalries and the rejection is illegal and made to evade the insurance amount to the beneficiary, the conduct of opposite party No.1 is amounting to deficiency of service on its part for non-payment of policy amount to the complainant.
The complainant in support of its case relied upon the following documents Viz (1) brochure of OP No.1 (2) letter dt 5.7.2001 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant along with repudiation letter of opposite party No.1 dt 30.3.2001 (3) office copy of legal notice dt 25.2.2002 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party and (4) postal acknowledgement in support of the above documents the complainant filed his sworn-affidavit in reiteration of his complaint as evidence, hence the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case.
Inspite of the service of the notice of this Forum the opposite party No.2 remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings by filing any written version in defence.
The opposite party No.1 in pursuance to the notice serviced made appearance through its standing counsel and filed its written version denying the truth and bonafides of the complaint avernments and maintainability of the complaint on fact an Law. It denies as false the fact of the opposite party No.2 introducing the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for the benefit of its lones including that of the complainant’s husband P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, hence requires a strict proof as to her entitleness for the policy benefits of Rs.1.00 lakh. It further submits the complainant’s deceased husband P. Chandra Shekar Reddy was not an innocent man and he was murdered due to severe group rivalries and deadly factions prevailing in and around Nannor Village for Village supremacy and further alleges that the deceased P. Chandra Shekar Reddy was one of the accused in Cr.No. 39/2000 of III Town Police Station Kurnool, in which one Mirza Mahaboob Baig was murdered on account of factions and on account of Village supremacy.
As the Cr.No. 215/2000 pertaining to the murder of P. Chandra Shekar Reddy (the husband of the complainant) was an off shoot and logical consequence of the Cr.No. 39/2000 of the same Police Station in which the deceased husband of the complainant was arrayed as one of the accused, the murder of the P. Chandra Shekar Reddy was definitely motivate one to wreck vengence against P. Chandra Shekar Reddy and hence the death of the complainant’s husband P. Chandra Shekar Reddy comes within the ambit of the exclusions under conditions No.4 (d) of the policy which says that the Company shall not be liable under this policy for payment of the compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured arising from or resulting from the insured committing any breach of Law with criminal intent and, hence justifies the repudiation of the claim of the complainant and there by their being no deficiency or failure on the part of the opposite party No.1 in performing any of its statutory duties seeks the dismissal of complaint with costs.
The opposite party in support of its written version relies on the following documents Viz (1) exclusions and conditions of the policy (2) certificate copy of charge sheet in No. 39/2000 and (3) certified copy of FIR in Cr No. 39/2000 dt 29.2.2000, besides to the above edocuemnts the opposite party No.1 filed its sworn affidavit it support of its case and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case.
Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to:-
The Ex A.2 is the letter addressed by the opposite party No.2, it dates to 30.3.2001. It repudiates the claim made for P. Chadnra Shekar Reddy under claim No. 2001/29 on the reasons that the death was due to past rivalries by this conduct and from the written version averments repudiating the claim of the complainant forward by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1, it appears that the opposite party No.1 is indirectly admitting the privy of it under Group Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Scheme with the deceased P. Chandra Shekar Reddy and himself as policy holder under the said scheme.
The only reason for repudiation of the claim is the alleged demise of P. Chandra Shekar by murder due to past rivalries. But the opposite party No.1 did not file any relevant cogent material to substantiate the Cr.No. 215/2000 of III Town Police Station Kurnool, covering the murder of the complainant’s husband P. Chandra Shekar Reddy as an off shoot and logical consequence of murder of Mirza Mahaboob Baig covered under Cr. No. 39/2000 of III Town Police Station, Kurnool nor any material is place by opposite party No.1 to show the deceased P. Chandra shekar Reddy has been convicted by any Court of Law as the deceased was arrayed as one of the accused in charge sheet in Cr No. 39/2000, as mere mention in the charge sheet as one of the accused doesnot necessarily mean that he was having post rivalries, it is only an allegation against the deceased P. Chandra Shekar Reddy which was not proved nor any of the concerned of the deceased P. Chandra Shekar Reddy with Cr No. 39/2000 nor the opposite party No.1 filed any documentary record of Cr No. 215/2000 showing that the murder of P. Chadnra Shekar Reddy occurred an account of past rivalries and the aggressors of deceased are relations or interested persons of the deceased of Cr.No. 39/2000. Neither the document record in Ex A.1 to Ex A.4 says the demise of P. Chandra shekar Reddy covered under Cr.No. 215/2000 was due to murder caused on account of past rivalries. Hence there is no material on record in support of the contentions of the opposite party No.1 in repudiating the claim. For want of substantiating material in support of opposite party No.1 contentions, the act of repudiation of the claim of the insurance by the opposite party No.1 as is remaining without any justifiable excuse, the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 is certainly amounting to failure on the part of the opposite party No.1 in performing the statutory duty in repudiating the said claim and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the said claim as the bonafides of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
As no cause of action is made out against the opposite party No.2 the complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.
In the result, and in sum up of the above discussions, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of the deceased P. Chandra Shekar Reddy to the complainant with interest of 6% per annum from the date of death of the deceased till realization along with costs of Rs.5,000/- and the opposite party No.1 is granted one month time from the date of receipt of this order for compliance of this order. In default the opposite party No.1 shall pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 8th day of April, 2004.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Publication of first opposite party (Brougher).
Ex A.2. Letter dt 5.7.01 issued by OP No.2 along with repudiation letter of
OP NO.1true copy).
Ex A.3 Office copy of the legal notice dt 25.2.2002 issued to OP No.1.
Ex A.4 Postal acknowledgement of the legal notice dt 25.2.2002 issued to
OP No.1.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Exclusions and conditions of the policy.
Ex B.2 Certified copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No. 39/2000.
Ex B.3 Certified copy of the FIR in No. 39 dt 29.2.2000.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
