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
Wednesday the 23rd day of May, 2007
C.C. No.12/2007
Boya Narayana, S/o Boya Talari Venkatanna,
R/o Obulapuram Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. ... COMPLAINANT
Verses
1) Amarnath Reddy, Development Officer, LIC of India,
Kurnool Branch, Kurnool.
2) The Branch Manager, LIC of India,
Kurnool Branch, Kurnool.
3) N. Rajeswaramma, LIC Agent,
C/o LIC Branch Office, Kurnool. ... OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint coming on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri.A.S.U.Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 1 and 3 called absent set exparte upon the perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the Complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on the Opposite Parties to pay policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 24% interest, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- towards costs and any other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the Complainant’s daughter P. Venkateshwaramma, W/o Late Gopal insured her life for Rs. 1,00,000/- by paying an amount of Rs. 2,700/- to Opposite Party No.1, who is the Development Officer of Opposite Party No.2 and obtained signature on the proposal form and assured policy bond will be issued soon. Surprisingly on 15-07-2006 the deceased Venkateswaramma received a receipt for an amount of Rs. 2,104/- as proposal deposit receipt instead of premium amount receipt. The deceased requested Opposite Party No.1 to refund the balance amount of Rs. 596/- (Rs. 2,700/- – Rs. 21,104/-) and he assured the said amount will be refunded along with policy bond but till her death on 22-07-2006 she did not receive either of them. The deceased nominated her father / Complainant as her nominee, after her death the Complainant informed Opposite Party No.2 as to her death and there was no response, the Opposite Parties did neither issued the claim forms nor settled the claim, being vexed the Complainant got issued legal notice dated 15-09-2006 even to this notice also there was no response. Hence the Complainant resorted to the Forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the Complainant relied on the following documents viz (1) Proposal deposit receipt dated 15-07-2006 for Rs. 2,104/- (2) Death Certificate and (3) Office copy of legal notice dated 15-09-2006 of Complainant’s counsel to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 along with courier receipt, besides to the sworn affidavit of the Complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The Complainant caused interrogatories to Opposite Party No.2 and replied to the interrogatories caused by Opposite Party No.2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to his case of the Complainant the Opposite Party NO.1 and 3 were made exparte and remained absent through out the case proceedings. The Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and contested the case.
5. The written version of Opposite Party No.2 submits that it has received Rs. 2,104/- on 15-07-2006 vide BOC No. 2722 in the name of one Smt. Venkateswaramma under the organization of Opposite Party No.1 and agent is Opposite Party No.3 the amount so remitted is kept in proposal deposit and is still laying under proposal deposit only. It further submits that it did not receive any proposal and other relevant documents from said Venkateshwaramma and it is has not resulted into a policy and hence there is no contact between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. Hence nothing is payable to the Complainant on the demise of Venkateshwaramma except refunding the amount held in proposal deposit to her legal heirs and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the Opposite Party No.2 did not file any documents but filed his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version avernments. The Opposite Party No.2 caused interrogatories to the Complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the Complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the Complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties?
8. It is the case of the Complainant that his daughter paid Rs. 2.700/- to Opposite Party No.1 for covering her life risk for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the said Venkateshwaramma died on 22-07-2006. The Complainant alleges that after her death the Opposite Party No.2 did not settle the claim. On the other side the Opposite Party No.2 submits that it has received an amount of Rs 2,104/- Vide BOC No. 2722 in the name of the deceased Venkateshwaramma and a proposal deposit receipt dated 15-07-2006 was issued to the deceased vide Ex.A1 and further it has not received any proposal form or any documents from said Venkateshwaramma, therefore the said amount was kept under proposal deposit and no policy bond was issued to the said Venkateshwaramma and there is no contact between the deceased and Opposite Party No.2.
9. The Ex.A1 also says that acceptance of this deposit does not make the corporation liable for acceptance of risk. Hence from the above exhibit it is clear that policy bond was not issued to the deceased for covering her life risk and when the policy bond itself is not issued then there arises no liability on part of Opposite Party No.2 to pay assured amount to the Complainant on the demise of said Venkateshwaramma as there is no contact between the deceased and Opposite Party No.2.
10. Therefore, on demise of said Venkateshwaramma nothing is payable to the Complainant as policy bound is not issued by Opposite Party No.2 for covering the life risk of said Venkateshwaramma. Hence the Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to pay the assured amount to the Complainant, and there is any deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party No.2 and the case of the Complainant is remaining devoid of merit and force. Hence the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to return the proposal deposit amount of Rs. 2,104/- to the Complainant with 9% interest from 15-07-2006 till realization as the Opposite Party No.2 kept the said amount in deposit without issuing Policy Bond. As the Opposite Party No.2 has not returned the said proposal deposit amount to the Complainant till the filling of this case, and driven the Complainant to the Forum for redressal the Complainant is also remaining entitled to costs of Rs. 300/-.
11. In the result, the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay to the Complainant the proposal deposit amount of Rs. 2,104/- with 9% interest from 15-07-2006 till realization along with costs of Rs. 300/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Computer Operator transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 23rd day of May, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Party :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Proposal deposit receipt dated 15-07-2006 for Rs. 2,104/-
Ex.A2 Death Certificate
Ex.A3 Office copy of legal notice dated 15-09-2006 of Complainant’s counsel to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 along with courier receipt
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri. K. Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. A.S.U. Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
