| Complaint Case No. CC/10/59 |
| | | | 1. V. Guruvamma, W/o. Late Vemula Peddulu, Age: 60 years, Occu: House-hold, R/o. Hanuman Bazar, Wyra Village and Mandal,Khammam District. | | V. Guruvamma, W/o. Late Vemula Peddulu, Age: 60 years, Occu: House-hold, R/o. Hanuman Bazar, Wyra Village and Mandal,Khammam District. | | Khammam | | Andhra Pradesh |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. 1. The Road Safety Club Pvt., Ltd., Admin Office,2A, 2nd Floor, Prakasam Road, T- Nagar, Chennai 600 017. | | The Road Safety Club Pvt., Ltd., Admin Office,2A, 2nd Floor, Prakasam Road, T- Nagar, Chennai 600 017. | | Chennai | | Thamilnadu | | 2. 2.The Bajaj Allienz Life Insurance Co.Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerawada,Pune, Maharashtra State. | | 2.The Bajaj Allienz Life Insurance Co.Ltd., G.E. Plaza, Air Port Road, Yerawada,Pune, Maharashtra State | | Pune | | Maharastra | | 3. The Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd., Service Executive, Area Office, Behind Old II Town Police Station,Khammam Town and District. | | 3.The Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd., Service Executive, Area Office, Behind Old II Town Police Station,Khammam Town and District | | Pune | | Maharastra |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | | BEFORE THE DISTIRCT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 29th day of April, 2011. CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com, L.L.B., President 2. Sri R. Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., L.L.B., Member C.C.No.59/2010 Between: V.Guruvamma, w/o. late Vemula Peddulu, age: 60 years, occu: House hold, r/o. Hanuman Bazar, Wyra village & Mandal, Khammam District. …. Complainant. And 1. The Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd., Admin office I floor, Prakasam Road, Nagar, Chennai. 2. The Bajaj Alienz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Head office, G.E. Plaza, Air port Road, Yeragada, Pune. 3. The Road Safety Club Pvt. Ltd., Khammam through Sriram DTH Pvt. Ltd, near Z.P.Circle. …Opposite parties. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Subramanyam, Advocate for complainant and of Sri G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri.G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; Notice of opposite party No.3 refused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this forum passed the following: ORDER (Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member) This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments that the complainant is the wife of Vemula Peddulu, during the life of the husband of complainant, he was the member of opposite party No.1 club, through opposite party No.3 and paid Rs.3,750/- through cheque on 10-9-2006 and he was issued membership certificate AMS Life card-5, the tenure of the membership is 61 months vide T.R.No.356897 for Rs.50,000/-, the opposite party No.2 insurance company issued policy No.RCN000131. As the husband of the complainant died, the complainant approached opposite parties for death information report on 13-8-2007, also made claim applications along with original policy certificates on the same day to opposite parties 1 & 3 requesting to forward the same to opposite party No.2 for settlement of claim. The complainant further submitted that on 11-3-2008 the opposite parties sent a letter to the complaint “ required documents to be submitted by you have not been received till this date, hence your claim is treated as closed” and on 28-4-2004 issued another letter “we have not received below mentioned documents for processing the claim. Kindly arrange and submit at the earliest i.e. attending doctor’s report and original death certificate”. And also submitted that on the date of application complainant furnished all the original documents along with application. Vexed with the attitude as the opposite parties failed to settle the claim the complainant got issued notice on 31-1-2009 to opposite parties and the same were acknowledged by them, on 11-2-2010 opposite party No.1 gave a reply informing that “we are only an intermediary who will arrange for insurance cover and forward the documents received from the clients, as and when the claim is raised. It is ultimately the insurance company has to decide whether the claim is admissible or not.” The opposite parties failed to settle the death claim of the husband of the complainant, as there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to settle the claim, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.10. Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of Annexure-XII, death claim form Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of death certificate issued by Tahasildar, Wyra. Ex.A.3 - office copy of Legal notice, dt.31-1-2009 Ex.A.4 - Photocopy of Membership certificate issued by opposite party No.1, dt.10-9-2006. Ex.A.5 - death certificate issued by Dr.Kotaiah, dt.9-6-2008 Ex.A.6 - Photocopy of certificate of insurance Ex.A.7 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.11-3-2008 Ex.A.8 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.28-4-2008 Ex.A.9 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.11-2-2010 Ex.A.10 - Postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.2 Ex.A.11 - Postal receipts (Nos2) On receipt of notice, the opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter opposite party No.1 admitted that the husband of the complainant was the member of Road Safety club with certificate No.356897 for the purpose of Insurance cover and given membership card for a period of 60 months and further submitted that they cannot be liable and the Insurance policy provided by opposite party No.2 is liable to satisfy the claim, the service of the opposite party No.1 would only be confirmed to the extent of arranging the insurance policy of Insurance company to its members, there is no deficiency of service on their part, also submitted that the opposite party No1 received letter from area office, and the same was forwarded to opposite party No.2 on 17-10-2007 and on 4-2-2008 along with documents which were furnished by the complainant to settle the claim, therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No,1, complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.1. Also submitted that it is clearly manifested from the terms and conditions that “any dispute in relation to claim will be subject to jurisdiction of Chennai Courts only”, as such the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the opposite party No.1 further submitted that the complainant not fulfilled the basic requirements, he has no locus standi to file the complaint and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the opposite party No.1, the following documents were filed and marked as exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 - Photocopy of letter, dt.17-10-2007 Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of letter, dt.4-2-2008 Ex.B.3 - Photocopy of certificate of insurance The opposite party No.2 in their counter specifically denied the averments made in the complaint that the husband of the complainant during his life time has taken membership certificate from opposite party No.1 for a period of 60 months, for the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- in turn opposite party No.2 issued policy vide plan No.RCN 0000131, group policy No.VADV 001090 and the name of complainant shown as nominee. And also denied the averments that after the death of the husband of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- as her husband died, she made representation to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to settle the claim, but so far they failed to settle the same. Also submitted that the deceased i.e. the husband of the complainant was suffering from ill health as on the date of taking policy, but he suppressed the same and obtained the policy, in view of suppressing of material facts , the complainant is not entitled to claim for death benefits as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On behalf of the opposite party No.2, the counsel for opposite party No.2 filed written arguments. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of CP Act? 2) Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? 3) To what relief? Point No.1: In this case the husband of the complainant by name late Vemula Peddulu was the member of the opposite party No.1 club joined through opposite party No.3 and he was issued Membership Certificate vide Certificate, tenure of membership for 61 months under the AMS lifecard-5 membership scheme vide T.R.No.356897, the husband of the complainant was the policy holder of said AMS life card 5 for Rs.50,000/-. The opposite party No.2, insurance company issued policy bearing No.RCN0000131 and the complainant was shown as nominee in the said policy. The husband of the complainant died on 9-6-2007 and the complainant has submitted all the necessary documents through opposite party No.1 and made several representations to opposite party No.1 for the claim amount. On 31/1/2009 the complainant got issued legal notice and the same was served against opposite parties. All the above facts were admitted by the opposite party No.1 and in the counter they have taken objection that the complainant did not come under the meaning of the consumer and as such the complaint is not maintainable. That as per the complaint and perusing all the documents on record, we observed that the complainant submitted claim form along with all the necessary documents through opposite party No.1 and requested for payment of claim amount. Even after filing of the complaint before the Forum the opposite party No.1 failed to take appropriate steps to settle the claim with opposite party No.3. And also taken plea that the forum has no jurisdiction, is only to escape from their liability and drag on the matter. In this case, the complainant is a consumer, as the husband of the complainant who utilized the services of opposite party No.2 to insure his life by way of group insurance through opposite party No.1. The same was observed by the Hon’ble National Commission in “M/s Harsolia Motors Vs M/s National Insurance Company Ltd. (2005) CPJ 27 (NC) wherein the National Commission made a elaborative discussion with section (2)(o) that “‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying a news or other information (but dose not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service)”. From the aforesaid definitions it can be held that: a) a person is a consumer who buys any goods for consideration and also include user of such goods; b) who hires any services for consideration and includes beneficiary of such services; From the above it is observed that the complainant is a consumer as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. POINT NO.2: In para No.15 of the counter of opposite party No.1, taken plea that “ as per the terms and conditions that any dispute in relation to this will be subject to jurisdiction of Chennai Courts only”, the cause of action arose at Khammam, where the opposite party No.3 issued Membership certificate to the husband of the complainant, as such this Forum has jurisdiction. As per Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, The complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,- a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or personally works for gain. As such this point is also answered in favour of the complainants. Point No.3: From the above we observed that the complainant submitted claim form through opposite party No.1, he got issued legal notices and taken all the steps for getting the claim amount, the opposite party No.1 also discharged their part of obligation i.e. submitting claim form along with necessary documents of the complainant, made correspondence from time to time and all other steps to settle the claim of the complainant. To support their case opposite party No.1 filed Exs.B.1 to B.3. The opposite party No.2, insurance company which is expected to maintain utmost standards in settling the claim, failed to perform their part of obligation or repudiating the claim with reasons, failed to give reply even after receiving the legal notices, filed counter stating that they did not receive any claim form, is nothing but deficiency of service on their part. The complainant sent the legal notices to the same address of the opposite party No.2, which is shown in the complaint. Opposite party No.2 failed to come forward to settle the matter even after filing all the documents before the Forum is nothing but deficiency of service. As such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) covered under the policy bearing No.RCN 0000131 with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of claim i.e.13-08-2007, till the date of deposit and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the litigation. The complaint against opposite parties No.1 and 3 is dismissed, as they are formal parties. Dictated to the Steno, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 29th day of April, 2011. PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties: None Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Photocopy of Annexure-XII, death claim form Ex.A.2 - Photocopy of death certificate issued by Tahasildar, Wyra. Ex.A.3 - office copy of Legal notice, dt.31-1-2009 Ex.A.4 - Photocopy of Membership certificate issued by opposite party No.1, dt.10-9-2006. Ex.A.5 - death certificate issued by Dr.Kotaiah, dt.9-6-2008 Ex.A.6 - Photocopy of certificate of insurance Ex.A.7 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.11-3-2008 Ex.A.8 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.28-4-2008 Ex.A.9 - Letter addressed by opposite party No.1, dt.11-2-2010 Ex.A.10 - Postal acknowledgment of opposite party No.2 Ex.A.11 - Postal receipts (Nos2) Exhibits marked for opposite party No.1: Ex.B.1 - Photocopy of letter, dt.17-10-2007 Ex.B.2 - Photocopy of letter, dt.4-2-2008 Ex.B.3 - Photocopy of certificate of insurance Exhibits marked for opposite party No.2 & 3: - Nil - PRESIDENT MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM | |
