Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/4/2015

M.Narasamma Wife Late Meesabthina Narayana rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Manager IndusInd Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.Chandrashekarreddy

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  02-02-2015

                                                             Date of disposal  :   31-12-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Thursday, this the 31st day of December, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member                             

   

                                 C.C.No.4/2015

 

M.Narasamma,

W/o.Late Meesabathina Narayana Rao,

 (Meesabathina Narayana Rao)

Hindu, aged 36 years,

Resident of Vaddipalem,

Buchireddypalem,

SPSR Nellore District.                                            …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.                                                                         

1)The Manager,

   IndusInd Bank,

   Nellore.

 

2) The Manager,

    Cholamandalam, M/s.General Insurance Co.Ltd.,

    Dare House, 234, NSC Bose, Chennai-1.            …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 23-12-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and  I.Bhaskara Prasad Rao, Advocate for the 2^nd opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

       This complaint is filed against the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant to direct them to pay Rs.2,00,000/- being the P.A.benefits covered under the policy  along with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of her husband’s of  death on 07-02-2014 till its payment, to direct them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to her by way of damages and compensation for causing mental agony and her sufferings and to grant costs of Rs.5,000/- for the complaint to her and also to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Consumer Forum may deemed it and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I (a) It is the case of the complainant that her husband   by name one Mr.M.Narayana Rao, S/o.Mr.Kumaraiah had opened an account in 1^st opposite party’s bank.  The said account which contained the benefit of personal accident, under the policy bearing no.2841/00103850/1026/000/00.  It was valid from 12-03-2013 to 11-03-2014.  The 1^st opposite party had deducted necessary premium amount from the account of complainant’s husband and paid the premium to 2^nd opposite party.  Thus, the accountholder is entitled Rs.2,00,000/- towards P.A., benefit if he dies in an accident during the above said period of the said policy.

(b)  It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-3 of her complaint that while the said policy was inforce, her husband late Mr.Narayana Rao had met with an accident on 07-02-2014 and  thereafter subsequently he died.  A case in crime no.42/2014 was registered in Nellore Rural police Station for the offence under section 304-A of I.P.C.  The photo copies of the FIR, copy of inquest report, and the copy of P.M.report are filed along with the complaint for kind perusal of the Honoruable Consumer Forum, Nellore. 

( c )  The complainant is the nominee under the above said policy and she is entitled to receive the said accidental death benefits.  She had submitted all the above said documents and applied for payment of policy amount.  But the opposite parties 1 and 2 had failed to comply her demand.  So, the opposite parties are liable to pay interest at 24% p.a., from the date of death of the insured till its payment.

(d)  It is also further submitted by the complainant that in paras 5 and 6 of her complaint that she got issued a legal notice dt.5-01-2015 through her counsel calling upon the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the P.A. benefits of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest.  The said opposite parties had received the said legal notice from the complainant but failed to comply her demands.  So, there is a clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the said opposite  parties.  The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Hon’ble Consumer Forum had got jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since the business premises of the 1^st opposite party is situated in Nellore Town and the incident took place within Nellore Rural Police station limits which is within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Consumer Forum.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

      The 1^st opposite party resisted the complaint and filed written version dt.22-09-2015 and denied the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party had also resisted the complaint and filed written version dtd.02-06-2015 and also denied the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

 

According to the contents of written version of 1^st opposite party:

(i)It is the case of 1^st opposite party that the husband of the complainant late Mr.Narayana Rao had approached 1^st opposite party and executed a loan agreement on 21-02-2013 for availing loan facility of Rs.43,000/- (principal amount) for purchase of two-wheeler named ‘Hero Honda Passion Pro’ which was agreed to be repaid along with interest charges of Rs.10,328/- in about 24 equated monthly installments and the said loan tenure which commenced from 21-03-2013 and last EMI payable was on 21-02-2015.

(ii) It is also further submitted by the 1^st opposite party that in paras 4 to 6 of its written version that there was no account opened by the complainant’s husband, but it was only loan account and the said  Mr.Narayana Rao opted to take insurance policy covering the risk of personal accident, which was availed specifically towards the securing the loan amount, with the endorsement as  financial interest in favour of the first opposite party.  The first opposite party is entitled to claim the sum assured  upto the limit of the loan outstanding as on date.  So, the first opposite party was clearly denied the allegations of the complainant that Mr.Narayana Rao has opened the account and the said account contained the benefits under personal accident policy and the first opposite party had deducted the premium from the account as false and frivolous.  The above said Mr.Narayana Rao, who is the husband of the complainant met with an accident and subsequently the claim was submitted to the 2^nd opposite party (the insurance company) by her. 

ADMISSION:

    As per the terms of the policy, the 2^nd opposite party has paid the policy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party bank as the bank had first       charge over the claim. As on the date of the settlement, the husband of the complainant was liable to pay Rs.31,200-50 Ps. towards full and final settlement of the loan account.  The first opposite party is ready and willing to pay the balance insurance amount of Rs.1,68,799-50 Ps.(after adjustment of the loan outstanding) including pre-closure charges and interest.  The 1^st opposite party had also informed to the complainant that the excess amount would be refunded to the legal heir and also informed over phone and in person.  The first opposite party has sought for necessary documents viz., death certificate, legal heir-ship certificate of late Mr.Narayana Rao and no objection certificate from other legal heirs in favour of one of the legal heir  for receiving the said amount.  However, the complainant has failed to produce any single document   in support of their claim till date. 

 

     It is also further submitted by the first opposite party in paras-7,8 of its written version that after death of the said Mr.Narayana Rao, the complainant came to office of the first opposite party and made enquires about the policy.  The first opposite party has clearly explained the complainant about the procedures and documents required for payment of the balance insurance amount received from the second opposite party and the complainant was convinced and agreed to provide all necessary documents  and comply with the procedure of the bank.  However, instead of producing the required documents, the complainant has issued legal notice to the first opposite party bank claiming entire insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  and not ready to pay the loan amount outstanding.  Hence, the payment of the insurance amount is pending only on account of the fault of the complainant and not of the bank.  It is crystal-clear there is no mistake/fault committed by the first opposite party and he is ready and the 1^st opposite party is willing to settle the balance insurance amount of Rs.1,68,799.50 Ps. (after deducting outstanding loan amount payable by the deceased borrower) to the complainant, subject to the production of death and legal heir-ship certificate  of Mr.Narayana Rao and no objection certificate from other legal heirs for receiving the insurance amount.  The allegations raised by the complainant in her complaint are denied as false, vexatious and had been made up with an ulterior intention to make unlawful gains out of it.  It is further submitted that the complainant is neither the customer of the bank nor has availed any services from the bank.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Further submits that the bank has neither caused nor has any intention to cause mental agony, distress and physical harassment to the complainant.   Hence the above complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation or damages.

 

                 It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the complainant to produce the necessary documents as required by the first opposite party to receive the insurance amount of Rs.1,68,799.50ps. and dismiss the complaint with costs and grant of such further or other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice. 

According to the contents of written version of 2nd^t opposite party:

Admitted facts:

   The 2^nd opposite party had contended that in para-3 of its written version that the first opposite party had deducted necessary premium amount from the account of the complainant’s husband and paid the premium to the 2^nd opposite party and that the accountholder is entitled towards personal accident benefits of Rs.2,00,000/- if he dies in an accident  during the said period under the policy. While, the policy in-force, the husband of the complainant i.e., late Mr.Narayana Rao met with an accident on 7-2-2014 and died.  The 2^nd opposite party does not admit that the complainant being the nominee under the policy, she is entitled to receive the said accidental benefits and this opposite party had failed to comply the demand and the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay the interest @ 24% p.a., from the  date of the death of the insured till benefits taken.

   It is also further submitted by the 2^nd opposite party in paras 4 and 5  of its written version that after receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party had deputed investigator Mr. Rahimkhan and settled the claim for Rs.2,00,000/- on 31-07-2014.  It is further submitted that the policy was taken by IBL Bank for their customers (loanees) with the opposite party and accordingly the claim was settled in their favour and the claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred to their bank account vide the transaction No.8013468173, dt.31-07-2014 and voucher No.1035543248.  It is further submitted that after receipt of the claim amount by the bankers, the outstanding amount would be deducted and the balance amount would be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.  In this case there is no fault or any lapse on service by the 2^nd opposite party insurance company.  This opposite party further submits that as per the certificate of insurance, the nominee is “IndusInd Bank” and this opposite party settled the claim in favour of financiers.  Since they settled the claim in favour of the financiers they are not liable to pay the interest @ 24% p.a., as claimed and also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of damages.

2^nd opposite party plea:

     Since settled the claim in favour of the financiers under the policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy issued, the complainant had to recover the amount from the financiers only i.e., the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay an amount, as claimed in the complaint. The 2^nd opposite party prays that this Hon’ble Consumer Forum may please to dismiss the case with costs.  

 

III.  The complainant had filed an affidavit as PW1 on 07-08-2015  along with documents were filed and marked as Exs.A1 to A6 on behalf of the complainant and she had also filed her written arguments on 07-08-2015 before this Forum and the 1^st opposite party had also filed an affidavit on 07-10-2015 as RW2 and the document was marked on its behalf and marked as Ex.B1 and also filed written arguments on 21-10-2015 and the 2^nd opposite party had also filed an affidavit on 9-9-2015 as RW1 and the documents were marked as Exs.B2 and B3 and the written arguments filed on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party on 9-9-2015 in support of their case.  A memo dt.18-11-15 is also filed by the counsel for the complainant, on her behalf and further stated that legal heir for her deceased husband and to receive it and there is no objection to receive it.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    Parties 1 and 2 towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.    It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

The oral arguments on behalf of the counsel for the complainant:

         Sri Venati Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that firstly even though the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is credited to the bank i.e., 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party in as much as on 31-07-2014 but negligently and with an ulterior motive to get wrongful gain since 1 ½ years, the 1^st opposite party has kept the paid money with it and showing irrelevant reasons inspite  of submission of relevant documents by the complainant.  He has also further argued that it is unjust, unreasonable and unlawful on the part of the 1^st opposite party towards the complainant   The complainant is the legal heir of her husband as per memo is filed. Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has prayed that the Honourable Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs of Rs.5000/- as the case may be.

The oral arguments on behalf of the counsel for the 1^st opposite party:

     The learned counsel for 1^st opposite party Sri P.Sreenivasa Rao has also vehemently argued that the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents such as legal heir certificate etc to process her claim.  He has further contended that by admitting the said amount of insurance from 2^nd opposite party because it is not disbursed to her for want of legal heir certificate.   The complainant’s husband is due to the 1^st opposite party and the said amount was withheld for clearance of loan amount outstanding.  There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party towards the complainant.  She had never turn up to submit the necessary documents.  Finally, the said learned counsel for 1^st opposite party has argued that 1^st opposite party is ready and willing to pay the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- after deducting the dues if any to the complainant.  So, the Honourable Consumer Forum may pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

The oral arguments on behalf of the counsel for the 2^nd  opposite party:

   Sri I.Bhaskar Prasad Rao, the learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party has also  vehemently argued that after receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant, 2^nd opposite party had deputed investigator one Mr.Rahimkhan and finally settled the claim for Rs.2,00,000/- on             31-07-2014.  He has also further contended that the said amount was transferred to 1^st opposite party’s bank vide transaction no.8013468173 st.31-07-2014 and its voucher no.1035543248.  Another contention of the said learned counsel for 2^nd opposite party that the outstanding amount is due to the bank and balance amount would be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased insured.  There is no fault or any lapse on the service by 2^nd opposite party-insurance company.  The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party has further urged that as per the certificate of insurance, the nominee is Indusind Bank” – 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party had settled the claim in favour of financers.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party towards the complainant.  So, 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.  Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence. 

      To appreciate the controversy, it would be an appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of fact as well as question of law in detail.  The basic facts of the case are not disputed and their repetitions of them are here avoided

         According to the pleadings of the complaint, affidavit and documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that 2^nd opposite party had credited the said insurance amount in the account of the deceased insured on 31-07-2014 as per the statement of account of the 1^st opposite party i.e., on Ex.B1. Ex.B2 is a certificate of insurance which contained the name of the financier i.e., the 1^st opposite party as nominee.  It is not correct in eye of law.  Ex.B3 refers to claim status and disbursement of insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party.  According to the memo dated 18-11-2015 filed by the counsel for the complainant, she is the legal heir of the deceased insured i.e., M.Narayana Rao.  We are of the opinion that it is not correct view that 1^st opposite party is keeping the insurance amount payable to the complainant with the bank i.e., 1^st opposite party.   As soon as 2^nd opposite party i.e., insurance company credited the above said amount in the account of late M.Narayna Rao, that is husband of the complainant, maintained by the 1^st opposite party, should disburse it to the complainant after deducting dues if any, immediately.  Withholding the above said amount by the 1^st opposite party itself creates doubt that 1^st opposite party had committed deficiency in service and negligently acted thereupon on some pretexts or showing the reasons to avoid payment of that amount to the complainant.

   It is no doubt that 1^st opposite party had admitted that the insurance amount with it deposited by 2^nd opposite party but payment was not made to the proper person namely complainant since 1½ year (31-07-2014 till today) for the reasons best known to the 1^st opposite party. The complainant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased insured and legal heir as a nominee to claim the insurance amount.  In nutshell, the complainant is entitled to get the said insurance amount after paying dues if, any, to the financier as case may be.  Proceedings before the Consumer Fora are inquisitorial but not adversary. Its main function is to decide the cases on the basis of justice, equity and good conscious.  There is a deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party towards the complainant.   The 2^nd opposite party had cleared the claim of the complainant as long back and credited in the account of the deceased insured but 1^st opposite party  withheld the said amount with it without disbursing it to the right person since long time.  It shows that negligence of the 1^st opposite party.  We are convinced with the arguments of the said learned counsel for the complainant.  Unjust enrichment by the individual, bank and Government whoever may be should be condemned as the case may be.  Mental agony cannot be measured in terms of money.  It is no doubt that complainant had suffered considerably for the acts of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.25,000/-  as damages to the complainant and she is also entitled to the costs of Rs.3,000/- of her complaint. These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the 1^st opposite party, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant under the policy after deducting dues if any along with interest @9% p.a., from the date of the complaint i.e., 02-02-2015 till the date of the realization; to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards the damages and compensation for causing her mental agony for suffering and also to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.  The complaint is dismissed against the 2^nd opposite party but without costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of December, 2015.    

 

             Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

07-08-2015

:

M.Narasamma, W/o.Late Meesabathina Narayana Rao, Hindu, aged     years, resident of Vaddipalem, Buchireddypalem, SPSR Nellore District.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1         RW2

09-09-2015         07-10-2015

:         :

K.Ravi Prasad, S/o.Suryanarayana Murthy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, working as Regional Claims Manager, residing at Visakhapatnam.     Kameswara Rao, S/o.Demudu, Hindu, age 31 years, Product Executive, IndusInd Bank Limited, D.No.16/1007, 3rd Floor, Subba Reddy Shopping Complex, Pogathota, Trunk Road, Nellore.

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1		:	Photostat copy of insurance policy No.2841/00103850/1028/000/00.
Ex.A2	07-02-2014	:	Photostat copy of the F.I.R. in crime no.42/2014 of Nellore Rural P.S.
Ex.A3	08-02-2014	:	Photostat copy of P.M. report on M.Narayana Rao.
Ex.A4	08-02-2014	:	Photostat copy of the inquest report of the deceased
Ex.A5     Ex.A6	-     03-01-2015	:     :	A copy of the final report submitted by the SHO Nellore Rural P.S.   Office copy of the legal notice along with two registered post receipts.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

Ex.B1       Ex.B2     Ex.B3	21-09-2015       11-03-2014           -	:       :     :	Photostat copy of certificate of insurance showing  the borrower details that the amount was paid to the nominee by name IndusInd Bank Ltd.,   Certified copy of certificate of insurance.     The view claim status of claim no.2841000378.

            Id/-                                                                                                            PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri V.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate, Ramesh Reddy Nagar, Nellore.

      2) Sri.P.Sreenivasa Rao, Advocate, Nellore.

      3) Sri I.Bhaskara Prasad Rao, Advocate, Nellore. 

 

Date when order copies are issued: