BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.85/2014

Dated this the 27^th day of December 2016

(Date of Institution: 14.01.2015)

Sambasivam, son of Thambusamy                       

81, Naidu Street                          

Thirubuvanaipalayam  

Puducherry.

….     Complainant

vs

1. The Branch Manager                             

    TATA AIG General Insurance Company    

    Samsung Tower, II Floor                   

    403L, Panthean Road

    Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

2. The Branch Manager                  

    TATA AIG General Insurance Company    

    202, 100 ft. Road, First Floor

    Mudaliarpet, Puducherry – 605 004.

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru T. Kathirvel, Advocate   

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: Thiru K. Ravikumar, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the first Opposite Party 1. to give the insured amount with interest from the date of complaint;  2. To give a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of transportation, 3. To give a sum of Rs.70/- towards cost of letter and legal notice;  4. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony; 5. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6000/- towards cost of this complaint. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The Complainant stated that his son by name Thambusamy had insured his two-wheeler bearing Regn. No. PY 01 BE 6438 with the first opposite party vide Insurance Policy No. 015154967400  and has paid a premium of rs.898/-.  The complainant is the nominee in the above said policy.  The complainant's son was died on 29.03.2012 in a road accident and the same was intimated to the first opposite party by the relatives of complainant.   Since no action was taken by the first opposite party to give the insurance amount, the complainant gave a letter dated 14.06.2014 by enclosing the relevant documents to the first opposite party.  Even then, there was no response from the first opposite party.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the first opposite party on 09.08.2014, for which also, the first opposite party did not send any reply.   On 11.08.2014 the complainant received a letter from the second opposite party without enclosing any claim form.  On 14.08.2014 the complainant received a discharge voucher from the second opposite party.  The complainant stated that once he was appointed as a nominee, it is illegal to ask No Objection Certificate.  The same might have been obtained at the time of taking policy.  On 14.08.2014 some persons from second opposite party came to the complainant and obtained all documents, passport size photos and also obtained his signatures and stated that on they will issue cheque on the next day, but so far no cheque has been received from the opposite parties.  Due to the negligent act and deficiency of service of the opposite parties, the complainant got mental agony.    Hence, this complaint. 

3. The reply version filed by the opposite parties briefly discloses the following:

The opposite parties stated that the nature of the claim made by the complainant is purely a money claim and does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the same is liable to be returned to the complainant for presentation in the appropriate civil court.  This issue of Jurisdiction may be taken up as a separate and a preliminary issue  before going into the merits of the case.  The opposite parties further stated that the mother of the insured/deceased Thambusami is alive and she is also his legal heir and she is a necessary party to the case and as she  has not been added as a party to the case, the complaint will have to be dismissed on the ground of non-joiner of necessary parties.  The complainant’s son Thambusami had insured his two-wheeler bearing registration No: PY-01-BE-6438 with these opposite parties vide an Insurance Policy No. 015154967400 from 28/10/2011 to 27/10/2012.  In the said Insurance Policy the deceased Thambusami had taken a Personal Accident cover by paying Rs.50/- and the amount insured was Rs.1,00,000/-  That in case of untimely accidental death of the insured the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the insured/deceased.  The legal heirs of any insured will have to submit a claim form to the opposite parties along with all the necessary documents.  If there are more than one legal heirs of the deceased insured, and if only one of them claims compensation, then the claimant will have to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs so that the claim is settled with the claimant.  Further stated that as soon as the complainant had informed these opposite parties about the death of the deceased Thambusami the opposite parties have registered a claim under claim No.620501217 and have started to process the claim.  The opposite parties have appointed Investigators M/s Speed Detective Agency (P) Ltd; to investigate the matter and the investigator had submitted his report on 13/08/2014.  As per his investigation report the complainant and Vasantha were the legal heirs of the deceased Thambusami.  The investigator had produced the copy of the ration card and a copy of the Judgment and Decree passed by Hon’ble II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry in O.S. 1921/2012 dated 26/03/2013 by which Vasantha the mother of the deceased Thambusami was declared to be his legal heir.  Further stated that on 14/06/2014 the said Vasantha had written a letter to the opposite parties claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Thambusami.  Neither the complainant nor his wife Vasantha submitted a claim form or any relevant documents were submitted for processing the claim by these opposite parties.  On 11/08/2014 the opposite parties have written a letter to the complainant asking the complainant to fill the claim form attached to the letter along with other documents.  As there were two legal heirs- the complainant as the father and Vasantha as the mother of deceased Thambusami the opposite parties have requested the complainant to produce a No Objection Certificate from the other legal heirs so that the claim is settled with the complainant.  The opposite parties have requested the copy of the PAN card and Voter ID card as per KYC guidelines that is a mandatory requirement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.  The opposite parties have also requested a copy of Bank pass book for payment through Electronic Fund Transfer.  But the complainant had not replied to the letter of the opposite parties dated 11/08/2014.  The opposite parties were always ready to settle the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased Thambusami, but the opposite parties could not settle the claim as no proper claim documents were submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased Thamnusmai.  The opposite parties further stated that as the complainant had not replied to the letter of the opposite parties dated 11/08/2014, the opposite parties have again written a letter to the complainant on 14/08/2014, asking the complainant among other documents to sign a Discharge Voucher for Rs.1,00,000/- and to receive the said sum.  But so far the complainant had neither produced the No Objection Certificate from the other legal heir Vasantha nor signed the Discharge Voucher.  No Objection from the complainant/mother of the deceased was necessary since the Mother of the deceased who is a Class I Legal heir is entitled to make a claim and the complainant was following up the claim for payment to him.  Hence the opposite parties were not in a position to settle the claim of the complainant.  The opposite parties were always ready to settle the claim of the legal heirs of the deceased Thambusami on merits, but the opposite parties could not settle the claim as no proper claim documents were submitted by the complainant.  These opposite parties states that they are ready to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of this Forum, if directed by this Hon’ble Forum.  Due to non submission of relevant document the opposite parties are unable to settle the claim, it is evidently clear that the complainant and the deceased’s mother has not co-operated with these opposite parties for claim process,  since the fault is on the part of the complainant and the deceased’s mother, they are not entitled to claim any interest or costs.

4.       On the side of the complainant, the complainant himself was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C10 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties, one V.R. Ravishankar, Deputy Manager, Claims Department of 2^nd opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 

5.       Points for determination are :

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed any deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6   Point No.1:

          Prior to going for discussion on the merit of this case, it is pertinent to decide whether the complainant is a Consumer and has right to sue this complaint.   There is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy taken by the deceased son of the complainant for his vehicle PY 01 BE 6438 with the opposite parties.   The only dispute is when the mother of the deceased is alive as Class I legal heir, the father who is Class II legal heir is not entitled to file this complaint.  This Forum carefully perused the complaint, reply version and the documents filed by both the parties and the arguments advanced by the Counsel for both parties.  It is pertinent to reproduce the definition of Section 2 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act for the meaning of complainant.

          Complainant means –

1. A consumer; or
2. Any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or
3. The Central Government or any State Government
4. One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;
5. In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint.

On perusal of Ex.C1, the son of the complainant by name Thambusamy has taken a policy with the Opposite Parties and has paid a premium of Rs.898/-.  The said Thambusamy died on 29.03.2012 at Tharapakkam, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu vide Ex.C3 the death certificate issued by Government of Tamil Nadu.  On perusal of Ex.C5 the copy of letter given by mother of the deceased by name
Tmt. S. Vasantha, it reveals that the mother of the deceased is alive and she is the Class I heir of the deceased.  But, the complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased who is Class II heir.  It is pertinent to mention here that when a dispute arose in a case where class I legal heir is alive, the class II legal heir cannot claim any right over the benefits of deceased.  The rights of the parties are governed by statutory provisions.  In this case, the complainant has stated that his son has nominated him while taking the policy with the first opposite party.  But, on perusal  of the materials available on record, no documents shows that the complainant is appointed as nominee of the deceased who is entitled to the claim benefits in the event of death of his son.  The claim should be made by the legal heirs of the deceased as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  In the present case, the mother of the deceased herself has given a letter vide Ex.C5 to the opposite parties for availing the death benefit of her son.    The provision 2 (1) (b) (v) of the Consumer Protection Act clearly defined as "in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative; who or which makes a complaint".  Hence, the complainant has no right to file this complaint as a "Complainant".

          7. Point No.2:

          Being the point No.1 is answered against the complainant, this point need not be answered.

            8. Point No. 3:

          In view of the discussion and decision held in Points No.1 and 2 that the Complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, these points are need not to be answered.

9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dated this the 27^th day of December 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:

CW1           10.07.2015           S. Sambasivam   

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  

RW1           14.10.2015           V.R. Ravisankar, Deputy Manager

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS MARKED ON CONSENT:

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER