Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/52/2014

Smt. Cherukunuru Geethanjali, W/o. Late Gnana Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank, Rep. by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-26-09-2014                                                                                                               Order Date:-18-03-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                                 SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

       WEDNESDAY, THE EITHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND

                                                      AND FIFTEEN.

C.C.No.52/2014

Between

1. Smt. Cherukunuru Geethanjali, W/0. Late Gnana Shankar,

House-wife, Hindu, aged about 30 years.

2. C.Rohini Shankar, Minor daughter, Hindu,

Aged about 12 years.

3. C.Sree Priya, Minor Daughter, Hindu, aged

About 10 years.

 

Nos.2 &3 are rep.by their mother/guardian i.e.

Complainant No.1.

 

All are residing presently at D.No. 20-2-666, Korlagunta,

Maruthi Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.                          

                                                                                              …. Complainants No.1 to 3

And

i) Andhra Bank, rep.by its Manager,

Tirumala Branch, Tirumala,

Chittoor District.

 

ii)M/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Rep.by its Divisional Manager,

Having office at D.No. 3-5-817 &818,

Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

 .                                                                                            …. Opposite parties No.1 & 2

 

           

          This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.02.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.T.M.Chayapathi, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and K.Premkumar, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

This complaint is filed by the complainants complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties for repudiating the claim of the complainants.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant No.1, who is the mother/natural guardian, of the complainants No.2 and No.3 filed the above complaint on behalf of the complainants 2 &3 also. The complainants stated that the husband of the 1^st opposite party and father of complainants 2 & 3 died in a road accident on 19.10.2013. During his life time he opened Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account Bearing No. 055810002604 on 18.01.2011 which covers the Insurance risk of accidental/death benefits incorporation with opposite party No.2. The complainants submitted that the salient features of Abhaya Gold Scheme are, the insurance charges are to be collected at the time of opening of the bank account and ends of 31st October of every year, and the claim forms should be submitted within 180 days from the date of accident/death through concerned bank. The Insurance period is from 1^st November of every year to 31^st October of consecutive every year. Accordingly on the date of opening of saving bank account on 18.01.2011 by the deceased a sum of Rs.18+20=38 was debited from the account of the deceased for Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account and same was credited in to the current Insurance Account of Opposite Party No.2. The Insurance coverage for the period from 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2012, further the next Insurance coverage is for the period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013. There is also debited entry towards Insurance premium is of Rs.36/- on 31.10.2013 by the opposite party No.1 bank. But it is said to be for the insurance coverage of the year 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2014. If it is so there is no need to collect the insurance premium on 31.10.2013 after the death of the account holder who died on 19.10.2013.

           3. After the death of the deceased on 19.10.2013 the complainants submitted the accidental death claim covered under Abhaya Gold Savings Account on 30.12.2013 to the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1. But it is endorsed by the opposite party No.1 that no insurance premium was recovered for the relevant insurance period from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 due to non availability of balance in the savings bank account of the account holder. As a matter of fact it is seen in the statement of bank account of the insured that all dues from the account holder was debited from his bank account to total sum of Rs.38.958/- from the balance of account of Rs.39,009/-. Therefore the opposite party No.1 is responsible for non payment of the insurance premium. It is nothing but deficiency of service by the opposite party No.1. As per the memorandum of understanding between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2.  The opposite party No.1 should make payment of insurance premium in respect of Abhaya gold scheme by crediting the premium to the main account of insurance company. Thus the opposite party No.1 is not only a facilitator but also agent of opposite party No.2 and as such both are responsible in depriving the accidental benefit under Abhaya Gold Savings Account to the nominees of the deceased account holder without paying the premium amount to the opposite party No.2. Hence both parties No.1 & 2 are liable for deficiency of service. Hence she caused a legal to both opposite party No.1 &  2 on 11.08.2014 after receipt of the legal notice opposite party No.1 has not sent any reply it is deemed to be opposite party No.1 admits its liability.

            4.  The opposite party No.2 sent reply by its letter dated 25.08.2014 that as per the memorandum of understanding, the opposite party No.1 has not remitted insurance premium of Rs. 36/- during relevant period. Hence the claim is repudiated. By aggrieving the same the complainant filed this complaint by praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards assured amount, and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service towards and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            5. Opposite party No.1 and 2 came in to appearance and filed their written version by admitting the account of the complainant’s husband with opposite party No.1 and insurance policy and contended that in the account of the deceased the debited Rs.38/-on 18.01.2011 covering risk up to 31.10.2011. The next premium of Rs.36/- was due for payment on 01.11.2011 for covering the risk up to 31.10.2012, the premium could not be deducted as the account holder fail to maintain sufficient balance, the risk for the period of 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2012 were not covered, because he maintained the balance during that period was Rs, 1/- only which was reflected in the statement of account. Unfortunately the account holder died in the accident on 19.10.2011 during which time the risk was not cover as sufficient balance was not maintained even to debit the insurance premium of Rs.36/-. Hence the opposite party No.1 was not at fault because the risk of the account holder is not covered due to non availability of sufficient balance even to pay the insurance premium. The account holder failed to maintain the minimum balance. And also contended that they are only a facilitator for the insurance of their account holders and in no way liable for any claim. Hence they prayed that above complaint may be dismiss against them.

            6. The opposite party No.2 filed their written version by admitting the policy of the complainants husband and stated that Rs.36/- was deducting on 18.01.2011 to cover the risk for the period of 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2012 and to cover the risk for the next year i.e. for the period of 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013 the opposite party No.1 has not debited the  premium and crediting the same to the opposite party No.2 account, because the account holder has not maintained any amount either towards minimum balance or any amount to deduct towards premium. Hence the 1^st opposite party bank unable to deduct  any amount from his account to pay premium to the 2^nd opposite party to cover his risk for the periods commencing from 01.11.2011 to 31.10.2012 and also for the period commencing from 01.11.2012 to 31.10.2013. Hence no amount was paid by the 1^st opposite party towards premium for the said two years. Hence the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay the claim and also contended that subsequently the 1^st opposite party paid a sum of Rs.36/- towards premium to the 2^nd opposite party on 31.10.2013 to cover the risk for the period commencing from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2014.  Hence the opposite partyNo.2 submits that immediately after receiving the reports and basing on papers submitted by the opposite party No.1. on behalf of the complainant this opposite parties unable to settle the claim as there is no premium was paid to the 1^st opposite party to cover the risk of the deceased and as per the terms and conditions of the policy and inform to the 1^st opposite party they are unable to settle the claim as no premium was paid and accordingly the claim has been repudiated, and same was intimated on 24.08.2014. Hence there is no deficiency of service in processing the said claim. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

            7.  The complainant No.1 filed her chief affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10 and on behalf of the opposite party No.1 MSK.Premchand, S/o. M.B. Kameswara Chainulu, Chief Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 &B2, on behalf of the opposite party No.2 Smt.M.Banumathi W/o. Sri. U.V.Subramanyam Divisional Manager filed her evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B3 to Ex.B8 were marked.

         On the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and documents filed by both parties the points for consideration are:-

           (i)      Whether the insurance policy is in force? If so, there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?                         

          (ii)       Whether the complainant is an entitled for any reliefs as prayed for?

          (iii)        To what result?

          8. Point No :-(i). There is no dispute regarding the SB account and insurance policy of the deceased with opposite party No.1, because same was admitted by both the opposite parties. The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is due to non availability of sufficient balance in the account of the deceased they have not debited the premium on 30.10.2012 and he maintained the balance in his account of Rs.1/- only from the period 01.10.2012 to 01.02.2013. Hence they have not debited any premium for the years 01.11.2011 to 30.10.2012 and 01.11.2012 to 30.10.2013. Hence they have not credited any premium to the opposite party No.2’s account. The opposite party No.2 stated that on 18.01.2011 the opposite party No.1 credited the insurance premium of Rs.38/- into their current account by debiting the premium amount from the deceased account and again on 30.10.2013 that there was sufficient balance in the account of the deceased the opposite party No.1 debited the premium i.e. on 30.10.2013 and credit the same to their current account for the policy period of 01.11.2013 to 30.10.2014 i.e. after death of the account holder except these premiums the Op No.1 has not credited any premiums for the years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 hence due to non payment of premium for the year 2012-2013 the claim was repudiated.

           The main case of the opposite party No.1 is the insurance premium was not credited because of non availability of sufficient balance in the account holder. But as per the Ex.A1 the Xerox copy of pass book of the deceased reflects that from 01.10.2011 to 02.02.2013 there was no minimum balance in the account, but on 02.02.2013 the  deceased deposited Rs.10,000/- in his account. From 03.02.2013 to 10.10.2013 the husband of the complainant used to deposit the amounts in different dates and accordingly he maintained the balance in his account. But as per Ex.B1, the statement of account of the deceased clearly shows that after the deposition of the amount by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 debited from the account of the deceased on 07-02-2013 for the outstanding minimum balance for the period 22.03.2011 to 25.06.2011, 23.09.2012 to 22.12.2012, 25.03.2012 to 25.06.2012, 25.09.2011 to 24.12.2011 and 25.12.2011 to 24.03.2012, 26.06.2011 to 24.09.2011 and 26.06.2012 to 22.09.2012 and also ATM charges of Rs.86/- and 83/- was debited on 14.02.2013. When the opposite party was collected all these amounts when the account holder deposited the amount. But the reasons best known to them why they have not debited the premium amount when the sufficient balance is maintained by the account holder.

            Again the opposite party No.1 debited Rs.36/- on 13.10.2013 from the account holder towards premium for the year 31.10.2013 to 31.10.2014 same was admitted by the opposite party No.2, that itself clearly shows that the policy was in force. Assume for a moment, when premium was not paid for the consecutive two years i.e.2011-2012 to 2012-2013 the policy would have lapsed. If the policy was automatically lapsed how the opposite party No.1 debited the premium on 30.10.2013 towards premium and how the opposite party No.2 receive the premium on 30.10.2013. When the policy was lapsed without reviving the policy, and also the opposite parties never stated that the policy was revived before collecting the premium on 30.10.2013, when the policy was not lapsed the question of revival does not arise. Hence it can be presumed that the policy is in force by the time of the death of the 1st complainant’s husband have the question of repudiation does not arise. In order to prove their contention the opposite parties fail to file the conditions of the policy during revival of the policy what are the conditions to be followed, in the absence of any supportive document the contention of the opposite parties cannot be considered. Hence that itself clearly shows that the policy was in force. The opposite party No.1 would have credit the premium to opposite party No.2, and then they can collect premium by levying penal charges, when they collected ATM charges and minimum balance charges from the account when the account holder deposited the amount on 02-02-2013. But in this particular case they have not done so. Hence because of the both parties silence about whether the policy was lapsed, if so how they can collect the premium with out reviving the policy or the policy is revived if so why they have collected the premium. Hence the adverse inference can be drawn against both the opposite parties. Hence the aspect of deficiency of service is held to be proved by the complainant and accordingly this point is answered.

          9. Point: - (ii). As the point discussed above the opposite party No.1 and 2 fails to convince the Forum that the policy was lapsed by the date of death of the account holder. Hence the complainants 1 to 3 are entitled  for an assured amount of Rs.1,00,000( Rupees One Lakh Only),.And  also the complainants 1to3 are entitled for Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only)towards compensation for mental agony and for deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)towards costs.

          10. Point: - (iii).  .In the Result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards assured amount; Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and for deficiency of service; and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are here by directed to comply with the order within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which assured amount Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and compensation amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

         Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 18^th day of March, 2015.

          Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                             President     

 

C.C.No.52/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Smt. Cherukunuru Geethanjali, W/o. Late Gnana Shankar (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

RW-1: M.S.K.Premchand S/o. M.B.Kameswara Chainulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

                                EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTs

 

Exhibits (Ex. A)	Description of Documents
	A True Copy of Abhaya gold savings bank under Account Number: 055810100026014 issued by Opposite Party No.1 to late C.Gnana Shankar along with statement of bank account. Dt: 18.01.2011.
	A Photo Copy of News item of Andhra Jyothi about the death of C.Gnana Shankar.  Dt: 20.10.2013.
	A Photo Copy of Identity card of C.Gnana Shankar as Asst. in Laddu Counter at Tirumala.
	A Photo Copy of Household card and Aadhar card of C.Gnana Shankar.
	A Photo copy of inquest report filed by the S.I. of Police Yerpedu in Crime No.119 of 2013 u/s 304(A) of IPC.  Dt: 19.10.2013.
	A Photo Copy of Death certificate of C.G. Shankar issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Yerpedu as on 19.10.2013.  Dt: 21.11.2013.
	A Photo Copy of Family members certificate issued by Tahasildar, Yerpedu Mandal through mee-seva.  Dt: 24.12.2013.
	A Photo Copy of claim preferred by the complainant No.1 to Opposite Party No.2 through Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 30.12.2013.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 with postal acknowledgements. Dt: 11.08.2014.
	A True copy of Reply from the Opposite Party No.2 repudiating the accident-cum-death claim.  Dt: 25.08.2014.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex. B)	Description of Documents
1.	A True Copy of Statement of Account of Cherukunuru Gnana Shankar showing the balance as Rs.1/- during the relevant period i.e., between the dates 01.10.2011 to 01.02.2013.
2.	Andhra Bank Savings pass book contain of the terms and conditions.
3.	Personal accidents claims statement submitted by the complainant filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 2.
4.	Investigation Report submitted by the investigator filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 2.
5.	Certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the first Opposite Party filed on behalf of the Opposite Party 2.
6.	Extract of Savings bank account pertaining to the deceased maintained in the first Opposite Party bank filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
7.	Office copy of the Letter Addressed to the first Opposite Party by the second Opposite Party filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
8.	Acknowledgement Cards (2 in Number) addressed to the counsel for the complainant and first Opposite Party filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

 

               Sd/-

           President

 

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

                                                   Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to: - 1. The complainant.

                    2. The opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.