3

The complainant claimed the insurance amount on the ground that her mother-inlaw

paid Rs. 168/- on 9-7-2008 under receipt No. 218259 for Janasri Bhima Yojana

and group insurance scheme covering from 01-8-2008 to 31-7-2009. She filed

receipt under Ex. A4. The passbook of Laggisetty Nagaratnamma issued by self help

group under Indira Kranti padam under the control of Zilla Samakhya, Kadapa was

Ex. A3. Laggisetty Nagaratnamma died on 14-11-2008. Ex. A5 was death certificate.

Ex. A6 was family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kalasapadu i.e. Laggisetti

Subramanyam and present complainant were family members of late Laggisetti

Nagaratnamma and Subramanyam was entitled to receive the amount due to his

mother, deceased, from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kalasapadu.

7. The deceased Laggisetty Nagaratnamma was not issued any policy by the

L.I.C of India and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,. The complainant’s husband

made representation to the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency,

Kadapa on 17-2-2009 for insurance amount of his deceased mother. The Xerox copy

of representation was Ex. A2. She filed Ex. A7 a Xerox copy of Self Help Group wise

check list of Sri Venkateswara Self Help Group of Kalasapadu with the names of

members, but against the names of Laggisetty Nagaratnamma and her husband in

the list it was noted that they did not join in the scheme and there were no nominees

and family members were benefited. The complainant contended that due to

computer mistake the particulars were not noted in the check list Ex. A7. The

complainant’s husband made another representation to the District Collector,

Kadapa on 19-1-2009 in Prajavani, Kadapa District. The Xerox copy of Prajavani

receipt was Ex. A10. The Xerox copy of representation to the District Collector,

Kadapa was Ex. A11. In Ex. A11 the District Collector referred the matter to R1 to

take immediate action. Again the complainant’s husband made representation to the

District Collector on 2-2-2009 in Prajavani, Kadapa district. The District Collector

endorsed on the representation to take personal action in the matter. The Xerox copy

4

of Prajavani receipt was Ex. A12 and Xerox copy of representation to the District

Collector was Ex. A13. Again on 16-2-2009 the complainant’s husband made

another representation to the District collector in Prajavani, Kadapa District. The

Xerox copy of prajavani receipt was Ex. A14 and Xerox copy of representation was

Ex. A15. The complainant filed Ex. A8 and Ex. A9 a Xerox copy of her insurance

policy and Xerox copy of Aroghyasri health card of her father-in-law and mother-inlaw

namely Laggisetty Subbarayudu and Laggisetty Nagaratnamma. When the

insurance company issued a policy to the complainant they could have issued a

policy in the name of deceased Laggisetty Nagaratnamma. If really the deceased

Laggisetty Nagaratnamma paid Rs. 168/- on 9-7-2008 under Ex. A4 the policy

should have been issued in her name. There was no affidavit from the person, who

collected Rs. 168/- from late Laggisetty Nagaratnamma under Ex. A4. Since there

was no insurance policy in the name of Laggisetty Nagaratnamma except the alleged

payment of Rs. 168/- under Ex. A4, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

8. It is not known, who was the nominee of the deceased Laggisetty

Nagaratnamma. The representations were made to the District Collector on various

occasions by the husband of the complainant namely Subramanyam. But the

complaint was filed by the daughter – i n – law of the deceased woman. Even if

Subramanyam was not in good health he could have filed the complaint and permit

his wife i.e. the complainant to represent the case in person. More over the

complainant had not impleaded the insurance company. The policy had to be issued

by the insurance company and Zilla Mahila Samakhya, Kadapa district. There was

no proper proof that the R2 collected the amount from late Laggisetty

Nagaratnamma. The R1 and R2 were not concerned for any payment under the

scheme. Even in Ex. A4, the R2 did not sign. In these circumstances there are no

merits in the case and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the points are answered

accordingly.

5

9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 29

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 X/c of House hold card issued in favour of Laggisetty Subbarayudu.

Ex. A2 X/c of letter from L. Subramanyam to R1, dt. 17-2-2009 along with

acknowledgement cards.

Ex. A3 Passbook issued by D.R.D.A., Kadapa in favour of Laggisetty

Nagaratnamma.

Ex. 4 Receipt No. 218259, dt. 9-7-2008 issued in favour of L. Nagaratnamma.

Ex. A5 Death certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Kalasapadu.

Ex. A6 Family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kalasapadu,

dt. 10-12-2008.

Ex. A7 X/c of checklist.

Ex. A8 X/c of policy No. 211091110090501 issued in favour of L. Supraja.

Ex. A9 X/c of Aroghyasri health card issued in favour of L. Subbarayudu.

Ex. A10 X/c of receipt of Prajavani, Kadapa District, dt. 19-1-2009.

Ex. A11 X/c of letter from L. Subramanyam to District Collector, dt. 19-1-2009.

Ex. A12 X/c of receipt of Prajavani, Kadapa District, dt. 2-2-2009.

Ex. A13 X/c of letter from L. Subramanyam to District Collector, dt. 2-2-2009.

Ex. A14 X/c of receipt of Prajavani, Kadapa District, dt. 16-2-2009.

Ex. A15 X/c of letter from L. Subramanyam to District Collector, dt. 16-2-2009.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: - --- NIL -----

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) L. Supraja, W/o L. Subramanyam, 34 years, Andhra Pragati

Grameena Bank Road, H.No. 1-244, Kalasapadu village and

Mandal, Kadapa district.

2) Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, G.P. Kadapa.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P. - - -