| First Appeal No. A/305/2014 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/04/2014 in Case No. CC/38/2013 of District Warangal) |
| | | | 1. Andhra Bank, L.B. Nagar Branch, | | Warangal, Rep. by its Branch Manager |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Badisha Raju, Son of Kanakaiah, Hindu, 46 Years, Medical Practioner | | R.o. 22.7.42, Gowthaminagar Colony, Warangal |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA ` AT HYDERABAD FA 305 of 2014 Against CC 38 OF 2013, DISTRICT FORUM, WARANGAL. Between : Andhra Bank, L.B. Nagar Branch, Warangal Rep. by its Branch Manager … Appellant/opposite party And Badisha Raju, S/o Kanakaiah, Hindu, 46 years, Medical Practitioner, R/o 22-7-42, Gowthaminagar colony, Warangal. .. Respondent/complainant Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Sridhar Rau Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Md. Anwer Coram : Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla … President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao .. Member Tuesday, the Thirteenth Day of June Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President ) ***** - This is an appeal filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the appellant/opposite party, aggrieved by the orders dated 21.04.2014 made in CC 38 of 2013 by the District Forum, Warangal directing the appellant/opposite party to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
- For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
- The case of the respondent/complainant, in brief, is that his wife B. Rajeshwari , who died on 15.08.2011 due to ill-health, obtained Abaya Gold Account baring No. 30531 (old) , 076010025030531 (new) with the appellant/opposite party on 02.08.1999 and he is the nominee for the same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent/ complainant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards the death claim. He submitted all relevant documents for death claim. Despite many representations, the appellant/opposite party did not settle the claim. Hence he got issued legal notice on 21.02.2012 to the appellant/opposite party, for which, he got reply from them dated 21.04.2012 with false and baseless allegations denying their liability which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the compliant to direct the appellant/opposite party to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% pa from the date of filing of the claim till realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages with interest and costs.
- Despite ample opportunities, the appellant/opposite party did not choose to file written version, hence the right to file the written version and affidavit is forfeited
- During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the respondent/complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A6 and on behalf of the opposite party no documents were marked.
- The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint directing the appellant/opposite party to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages within a month.
- Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/opposite party preferred this appeal on the ground that the (i)District Forum ought to have seen that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., United India Insurance company and the bank is only a facilitator and the claim has to be settled by the Insurance company, (ii) The District Forum had not taken into consideration Ex. A3 reply in which all the facts were mentioned that as the respondent/complainant is not entitled as the death of account holder was due to ill health and not accidental death and there was no balance in account. Hence prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the District Forum.
- The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
- There is no dispute that the wife of the respondent/complainant, by name, Rajeswari, is the Account holder of the Andhra Bank and her husband is the nominee. There is also no dispute that there is insurance coverage for accidental death. There is no dispute that his wife died due to sudden death and it is not an accidental one.
- (i) The first contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the claim has to be settled by the Insurance Company.
(ii ) We have perused Ex. A-5 Savings Bank Account. As per 10( i) of the Exclusions to the Insurance Policy stipulates that Insurance company shall not be liable for compensation in respect of death, injury or disablement of the insured person. (iii) In view of the above condition, the Insurance Company is not liable for settlement of the claim. - (i) The further contention of the appellant/opposite party is that the death of the account holder was due to ill health and not due to accidental death.
(ii ) The respondent/complainant averred that his wife died due to ill health. (iii) We have perused Ex. A-7 case sheet which shows that the account holder died due to sudden death. Condition No. 7 stipulates that insurance covers only due to accident. Since the death occurred not due to accident, the respondent/complainant is not entitled to claim the amount under the said policy. - After considering the facts and circumstances of the case , we are of the opinion that the respondent/complainant is not entitled to claim any amount under the insurance coverage. The District Forum by oversight awarded amount. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.
- IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER DATED : 13.06.2017. | |
