BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 05th day of October , 2010
C.C.No 109/09
Between:
Bomma Saraswathi, W/o Late Bomma Murali Kumar,
R/o Vempenta Village,Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District.
Now Residing at H.No.80/11/129-B6,Upstairs, Abbas Nagar, Kurnool-518 002.
…..Complainant
-Vs-
- The Branch Manager,
D.No.1-39-15, Life Insurance Corporation of India,Branch Office, Near R.T.C. Bus Stand, K.G.Road, Atmakur (V and M),Kurnool District-518 422.
2) The Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
H.No.1/55, Post Box No.10 College Road, Kadapa-516 004.
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. B. Naga Lakshmi Reddy , Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 109/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) to pay the accidental death benefits under the two
policy Nos.651950561 dated 28-05-1996 for Rs.1,00,000/- and 652590705 dated 28-04-2000 for Rs.1,00,000/- called as “ Bheema Kiran Policies” totaling to Rs.2,00,000/-
(b) to award costs of the complaint.
(c) to award Rs.20,000/- for mental agony
(d) to award future interest on the awarded amount.
(d) to grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The husband of the complainant Late Bomma Murali Kumar took two accidental policies bearing Nos. 651950561& 652590705 for Rs.1,00,000/- each. On 28-02-2005 the husband of the complainant was killed by Naxalites. On the report given by Sankar Goud , Atmakur police station registered a case in Cr. No. 30/05 against the Naxalite. The husband of the complainant paid the premiums regularly under the two policies. The death of the husband of the complainant is a accidental death. After the death of Murali Kumar, the complainant who his the wife submitted claim forms to OP.No.1 under the two policies . OP.No.1 paid only Rs.1,00,000/- under each policy on 28-05-2005 . The complainant was not paid the accidental death benefits under the policies. The complainant gave a legal notice dated 09-05-2008 calling upon the OPs 1 and 2 to pay accidental death benefits covered under the policies. OPs 1 and 2 received the said notices on 10-05-2008 but they failed to pay the same. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by OP.No.1. It is stated in the written version of OP.No.2 that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainants husband B.Murali Kumar took the policies bearing Nos. 651950561& 652590705 for Rs.1,00,000/- each from the OPs . The said two policies are accidental death benefit policies. The OPs paid Rs.1,00,000/- each under the two policies on the claims made by the complainant . The complainant filed the complaint suppressing the true facts. The OPs after receipt of the claim forms from the complainant scrutinized the same and paid assured amount to the complainant as she is not entitled to accidental benefits. The death of the deceased was not accidental and the complainant is not entitled for accidental benefits under the two policies. The complainant having received the assured amount towards full and final settlement filed the present complaint with false allegations. The claim of the complainant was settled on 28-05-2005. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint within two years from 28-05-2005. The complaint is bared by limitation .The complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1to B3 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether the complaint is bared by time ?
(ii) whether the death of the insured is accidental or not ?
(iii) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for
(iii) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 :- It is the case of the complainant that her husband Bomma Murali Kumar took two policies from OPs and that the insured died on 28-02-2005 . To prove the same the complainant filed her sworn affidavit. Ex.A1 and A2 are the policies. They stand in the name of the Bomma Murali Kumar husband of the complainant. The complainant filed Ex.A3 death certificate of her husband. It is mentioned in Ex.A3 that Bomma Murali Kumar died on 28-02-2005. As seen form Ex.A1 and A2 it is very clear that Bomma Saraswathi the complainant is the nominee under the policies. Admittedly both the policies are accidental death benefit policies. Admittedly after the death of Bomma Murali Kumar the complainant submitted claim form to OPs and OPs paid assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each under the two policies on 28-05-2005. Ex.B1 and B2 are the discharge forms signed by the complainant.
8. It is the case of Ops that the complainant received amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each under the two policies on 28-05-2005 in full satisfaction of her claim and that the complainant filed the present complaint beyond the period of limitation . Admittedly the present complaint is filed on 12-06-2008. According to the complainant prior to the filling of the present complaint a legal notice was issued to OPs 1 and 2 on 09-05-2008, that the OPs did not give any reply and hence the complainant filed the present complaint within two years from 09-05-2008. Issuing of legal notices does not extend the period of limitation. As per Sec.24 (a) of the C.P. Act the period of limitation to file a complaint is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The forum can condone the delay in filling the complaint if sufficient cause is shown for not filling the complaint within the said period of limitation. Admittedly in the present case no petition is filed to condone the delay in filling complaint. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OPs that the complainant was paid assured amount on 28-05-2005 and withheld the accidental benefits as the death of the assured was not accidental. Admittedly the complainant singed the discharge forms Ex.B1 and B2 having received the assured amount on 28-05-2005. The complainant is fully aware on 28-05-2005 itself that she was not paid accidental benefits under both the polices. Payment were made to the complainant on 28-05-2005 in pursuance of the claims made by her. The cause of action if any arose on 28-05-2005. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint on or before 28-05-2007 claiming the accidental benefits. The claim of the complainant for accidental benefits is bared by time.
9. Point No.2 :- Admittedly the assured Murali Kumar died on 28-02-2005. After the death of Murali Kumar the complainant submitted claims to OPs and OPs paid the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each under the two policies . It is the case the OPs that they paid the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under each policy as the death of the assured was not accidental . Admittedly Bomma Murali Kumar was murdered by Naxalites on 28-02-2005. The OPs to show that there were disputes between the members of Bomma family and Naxalite relied on Ex.B3 copy of the judgment in Session Case of 450/02. As seen from Ex.B3 it is very clear that Bomma Murali Kumar husband of the complainant is 11th Accused in the Session Case No. 450/02 on the file of Special Judge for SCs and STs Act, Kurnool. The complainant filed Ex.A4 copy of the FIR in Cr.No.30/05 to show that her husband was killed by Naxalite on 28-02-2005. In Ex.A4 it is mentioned that on 28-02-2005 B.Murali Kumar and some others were invited by Naxalite to compromise the case in Session case of 450/02 on the file of the SC/ST Court, that on the advise of the Naxalites the complainants husband and others went to the spot and there the Naxalite killed Bomma Murlai and others on 28-02-2005. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OPs that the death of Bomma Murali was not accidental as he was murdered by the Naxaslite with a clear intention and with a pre plan. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in III (2006) CPJ 213 (NC) where in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that whether murder is accident depend on the proximity of cause of action of such murder. It is further observed that the intentional killing does not fall within the word accident. In the present case on hand Bomma Murali was intentionally killed by the Naxalite on 28-02-2005 with pre plan. Therefore it can be said that the killing of Bomma Murali does not fall within the word accident. In the decision cited above The National Commission held that the complainant is not entitled to double accident benefits as the death of the insured was not accidental. In the present case also the OPs did not pay the accident benefits to the complainant as the death of the complainants husband was not accidental.
10. Point No.3 :- The complainant filed the present complaint claiming accidental benefits under the two polices. Admittedly the complainant was paid assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each under both policies. She was not paid accidental benefits under both the polices as death of her husband was not accidental. The complainant is not entitled to the accidental benefits under the two policies. The death of her husband was not accidental. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The OPs rightly refused to pay accidental benefits under the two policies to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to the relief as prayed for.
11. Point No.4 :- In the result the complaint is dismissed . In the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 05th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of policy No. 651950561 dated 28-05-1996, for Rs.1,00,000/-
Ex.A2. Photo copy of policy No. 652590705 dated 28-04-2000, for Rs. 1,00,000/-
Ex.A3. Photo copy of death certificate of B.Murali Kumar.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.30/05 of Atmakur, P.S.
Ex.A5. Inquest report.
Ex.A6. Photo copy of postmortem report dated 01-03-2005.
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dated 09-05-2008 along with
Postal receipts and acknowledgements.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Acknowledge receipt of LIC of India policy No. 652590705.
Ex.B2. Acknowledge of death claim under policy No. 651950561, dated 12-05-2005.
Ex.B3. Photo copy of Judgment in Session Case No.450/02
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
