By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get compensation and interest for the unlawful delayed claim award of opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant's wife took a RPLI insurance policy on 28.02.2005 bearing Policy No. R-KL-CC-EA-74843. The sum assured is Rs.50,000/- and the complainant was the nominee. On 11.02.2008 Complainant's wife committed suicide, thereafter complainant submitted claim form with all documents to RPLI department. But the claim denied by the opposite parties stating that a case is pending against the husband/complainant and family members. After investigation Accused No.1 the complainant is deleted from the array of the Accused list. Then the complainant collected a letter from the investigating officer showing that he is exempted from the case and produced this letter before the RPLI on 15.12.2008. Even after the submission of Ext.A4 document opposite parties not settled the claim. Then the case pending before the Honorable Sessions Court, Kalpetta related to the death of life assured Subha has been disposed on 22.11.2013 and all the accused are acquitted. The order copy of the same also submitted to RPLI, at last on 21.02.2014 complainant received the claim amount. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to get compensation and interest for the unlawful delayed claim award.
3. Notice served to opposite parties and they appeared and filed version. In the version, opposite parties admitted the insurance policy. The policy was accepted on 28.03.2005 by assigning the policy No. R-KL-CC-EA74843 and P. J. Cheriyan, the Nominee, by a letter dated 22.04.2008 reported that his wife expired on 11.02.2008, and preferred a claim. Detailed enquiry was made through the 2nd opposite party, it was reported that the insurant died due to hanging and court case was pending in connection with the incident. The applicant/claimant was the accused number 1 in the FIR. Hence the claim was not recommended by the second respondent. Again opposite party stated that according to Rule 62 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules if the policy holder is murdered by any of the legal representative/nominee(s), the policy money shall not be paid to the murderer even if he/she is acquitted by the competent court of law by giving him/her the benefit of doubt. If person(s), who in the event of death of policy holder, is/are eligible to receive the policy money under Post Office Life Insurance Rules 2011, is/are charged with the offense of murdering the policy holder or for abetting the commission or such an offense, the claim of such person(s), including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the policy money, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted again him/them. If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the person(s) concerned is/are convicted for the murder or abetting the murder of the policy holder or acquitted thereof by giving benefit of doubt, such person(s) shall be debarred from receiving the policy money which shall be payable to other eligible legal heir(s) of the policy holder. Later a letter was issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Manathavady addressed to the 2nd opposite party informing that the applicant's name was deleted from the array of the accused. But getting the final verdict of the case was essential as the applicant was listed as accused number 1 in the case. The applicant was informed that the claim can only be settled after the outcome of court case. A copy of the judgment on the above mentioned case in which the applicant was declared as not guilty was received by the 1st respondent on 23.01.2014. On receiving permission from the higher authorities the claim was sanctioned on 11.02.2014 and the same was paid to the applicant on 22.02.2014. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On perusing the complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5. Opposite parties examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B4. Ext.A1 is the Claim Sanction Letter dated 11.02.2014. Ext.A2 is the copy of Postmortem Report. Ext.A3 is Judgment of additional sessions Judge, Kalpetta dated 22.11.2013. Ext.A4 is the copy of letter dated 15.12.2008 and Ext.A5 is the copy of Letter dated 19.11.2009. Ext.B1 is the Letter send by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.B2 is the Copy of F.I.R. Ext.B3 and B4 are the Extract of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules.
6. On going through the evidences and documents Forum find that in Ext.B3 and B4 Post Office Life Insurance Rules clause 62 it is specifically stated that if the policy holder is murdered by any of the legal representative/nominee the policy money shall not be paid to the murdered even if he is acquitted by the competent court law by giving him the benefit of doubt. But in this case the complainant/nominee is deleted from the array of accused at the investigation stage itself. Ext.A5 submitted by the Investigation officer clearly stated that complainant is not arrayed as accused. Hence there is no need of getting the final verdict of the case. The persons who are arrayed as the accused in S.C.109/2009 are the relatives of nominee but they are not the legal heirs of the deceased life assured. Ext. A4 dated 15.12.2008 shows that the husband of deceased lady Subha has been deleted from the array of accused for his non involvement. But on 22.02.2014 only the complainant received the claim amount of Rs.50,000/- plus bonus of Rs.8,250/-. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that there is delay in allowing the claim from the part of opposite parties. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- The Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant, hence the complainant is entitled to get interest with cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% for Rs.50,000/- from 16.12.2008 to 21.02.2014 and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February 2015.
Date of Filing:17.03.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Cheriyan. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Hemand. Inspector Posts, Calicut Division.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Sanction Letter. dt:11.02.2014.
A2. Letter. dt:30.07.2012.
A3. Copy of order in sessions case No.109/2009.
A4 Copy of Letter. dt:15.12.2008.
A5. Copy of Letter.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Letter.
B2. Copy of First Information Report.
B3. Extract of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules.
B4. Extract of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
