Karnataka

Bidar

CC/49/2016

Baburao S/o Gurlingappa Twade - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager LIC of India Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Shakuntala Patil

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 49/2016

 

                                                                                          Date of filing : 15/07/2016

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 28/04/2017

 

 

 P R E S E N T:        (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                   (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:       1.  Baburao, s/o Gurlingappa Twade,

                                              Age: about 45 years, Occ: Labour,

                                            R/o Hipparaga Bag,

                                             Tq.Basvakalyan,Dist.Bidar.

 

                                      2.  Revansiddappa, S/o Gurlingappa Twade,

                                              Age: about 40 years, Occ: Labour,

                                           R/o Hipparaga Bag,

                                           Tq.Basvakalyan,Dist.Bidar.

                                             

                                              

                                     ( By Smt. Shakuntala Patil, Advocate )

 

 

                                                    VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-           1.  Divisional Manager,

                                               ( Claim Department) LIC of India,

                                                Station Road, Raichur-586101.

                                         

                              

                                      2.  Branch Manager,

                                           L.I.C. of India Narayanpur road,  

                                              Basavakalyan-585327.

 

                                      (  By Shri. Basavaraj U., Advocate)

                                               

 

 

::   J U D G M E N T  ::

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This complaint is filed by the above said complainants U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging  deficiency in service  on the part of O.Ps   The subject of the case is as under:

 

2.              The complainants aver that the elder brother of complainants’ by name Rajkumar, S/o Gurlingappa in his life time obtained a policy bearing no. 660423236 for sum assured of                          Rs. 2,00,000/- showing his mother as nominee to the said policy with the O.P.no.2.  The said Rajkumar  died on 08/08/1998 leaving behind his wife and son.  Late Rajkumar had obtained other policies and he had made nominee of the said three policies to  his wife namely Mahadevi.  She has received the amounts of the said three policies. The mother of the complainants Heerabai submitted claim application along with original policy after the death of her son Rajkumar but, the O.Ps have not released the policy amount due to pending of the case                         O.S.No. 128/02 before Civil Judge (JD) which was filed by the wife of late Rajkumar.   The respondents after verifying the documents assured to release the policy amount in favour of the mother of complainant, the complainants along with their mother approached several times to the office of respondent no.2 requesting to release the said policy amount since March-2010 and thereafter the mother of complainant i.e. Heerabai died on dated 29/09/2010. 

 

3.             Further complainants claim that, the complainants and deceased Rajkumar are the successors of their mother Heerabai.  Rajkumar  died leaving behind his wife Mahadevi and son Nandkumar.  After the death of Rajkumar, the wife of late Rajkumar by name Mahadevi and her son  received  amount of 3 policy   of late Rajkumar totally Rs. 2,23,955/- though the mother of complainants had share in the policy amount of late Rajkumar.  The wife of late Rajkumar filed a case in O.S. No.128/02 before CJ (JD) at Bidar claiming right in the present policy amount where in mother of the complainants was shown as nominee.  The said Mahadevi by playing fraud got compromised the said case but the mother of complainant after coming to know the real fact challenged the compromise decree in M.A. no. 14/2004 and the said appeal was allowed setting aside the compromise decree and O.S.No.128/02  was re- opened and later on the said  case was  dismissed for non prosecution on dated 02/12/2009.  The wife and son of late Rajkumar received policy amount made by Rajkumar more than their share and now the complainants are entitled for present policy amount, being the legal heirs and successor of their mother and invested their time and money in litigation with regard to policy amount.

 

4.             After death the death of the mother as per the instructions of the O.Ps they have produced survival certificate and death certificate of their mother and requested to release the policy amount in their favour.  In stead of releasing of the policy amount the O.Ps have sent letter dated 18/12/2015 in the name of their mother stating about the settlement of policy amount on dated 29/02/2012 through cheque amount of Rs.1,14,199/- which was returned un-delivered or cheque had become stale.  Hence the O.Ps asked to produce some documents and bank account number for payment of policy amount  of the nominee though the O.Ps were in full knowledge about the death of nominee of policy holder.  The O.Ps simply prolonged the matter and   harassed the poor innocent complainants and yet the O.Ps have not released the policy amount.    In spite of service of legal notice sent by the complainant the O.Ps have failed to release the policy amount in favour of complainants.  Hence the complainants approached this Forum. 

 

  5.           After receipt of Court notice the O.Ps have put up appearance through counsel of their choice and filed their written versions therein claiming that, the complaint filed is not tenable either on factual or on  legal grounds.  The O.P.no.1 admits the contents of para no.1 regarding the release of policy claim amount for three policies in favour of nominee Mahadevi wife of deceased.   In reply to contents of para no.2 the complainant himself admitted that, amount was not released due to pendency of Civil Suit, no more explanation is required.  The contents of para no.3 of the complaint regarding the O.Ps after verifying documents assured to release the amount, but during that, time the nominee of policy no. 664023236 Heerabai expired on dated 29/09/2010. The O.Ps have never asked the complainant to produce hereditary certificate or the death certificate and it is correct to state that, when counsel and their client approached it was shown that the policy amount was settled on dated 28/02/2012 for Rs.1,14,199/-vide cheque no. 4-2075 dt. 01/03/2012 in the name of nominee, which was returned undelivered.  So by this admitted fact it is evident that, the O.Ps have not caused any deficiency of service.  Rest of the contents of this para are all false and denied.

 

6.          In reply to the para no.5 of the complaint that the complainants may be the successors of late Gurlingappa who is the father.  Further it is admitted by the O.Ps that the wife of Rajkumar Mahadevi received amount for 3 policies.  So far the civil litigation the O.Ps. are unaware about the proceeding and result.   The Civil Court has not dealt with apportionment of policy amount and no share has been decided and hence question of sharing does not arise.  As per policy contract the O.P is  to abide by the conditions of policy contract and after the death the nominee would pay the sum assured as per the nomination given by the policy holder at the time of policy purchasing and as stated in policy proposal and policy bond. So, far the present claim made by the complainant as legal heirs and successors is absolutely wrong  as they have not produced the succession certificate form competent court, so far family G-Tree issued by V.A. of village Hipparaga-B is not valid.  The V.A. is not competent person to issue the same.  The only and only record to release the claim amount in favour of successor whom so ever they may be, they have to get a valid order from competent court regarding their competency to receive claim amount in favour of them.  Then only O.Ps. would have a free hand to release the claim amount.  So far the  policy contract,  nominee is Heerabai, w/o Gurlingappa.  But as Herrabai has died, the contract of policy to release the amount has come to an end.  More over the policy was purchased by  the deceased Rajkumar and he had nominated his mother as nominee,  but the matter become litigated in Civil Court, and the suit was dismissed for non prosecution.  It is to be submitted specifically that, the matter in question has not attained the finality  and no decision has been delivered by competent Court.  Under such circumstance, claiming amount by the complainants have no locus standi because they are not the party to the policy contract.  The mother of  complainant is only a nominee not policy holder, when nominee herself is not alive rest of the person who are all the claimants shall have to get order from competent civil court about their rights to get the claim amount, so in view of the nature of the case the Forum may direct the complainants to get the succession certificate form competent court and get the claim amount released in favour of them as per the order of Court.  The para no. 6 to 8 of the complaint are all denied by the O.Ps.  The O.Ps have no binding contract with complainants, they are no way concerned.  They are not the legal hairs of deceased Rajkumar.  The complainant cannot step into the shoe of the deceased Rajkumar ( policy holder without any authentication. Complainants have no right to file the complaint hence the complaint may dismissed with costs.

 

7.         Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.

 

8.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?

 

2. What order ?

 

9.         Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

1. In the negative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

                                                                                                

 

:: REASONS ::

10. Point No.1:-  In this case, a strange situation has arisen.  Both sides admit that, the present deceased  mother of the complainant and their brother late Rajkumar, being nominee had expired.  Prior to death of late Hirabai, there was Civil litigations between the late nominee Hirabai and wife of the late policy holder Mahadevi.  As the matter stands, the Civil suit has in the meantime got dismissed due to non prosecution.  Be that, whatsoever may, after the death of Hirabai, who would succeed to her estate, is a matter to be decided by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.  In the present case, the complainants have not even chosen to implead said Smt. Mahadevi as a party, and this Forum is unaware of her stand point.  Even otherwise, there is no privity of contract between the complainants and O.P. corporation and thence the relationship as consumer and service provider is non-existent.  Therefore we hold that, there is no deficiency of service and hold point no.1 in the negative.  The complainants if so advised, may approach a Civil Court to ameliorate their grievances.

 

11.              Resultantly, the case does not survive for consideration and we proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

   

1.  The complaint is dismissed.
2.  There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of  April-2017 )

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

                                                                                           

Documents produced by the complainants

1. Ex.P.1- Copy of order Sheet in O.S.No.128 of 2002 of Principal Civil Judge ( J.D.) Bidar.  
2. Ex.P.2- Copy of order sheet in M.A. No.d 14/2004 of Principal Civil Judge (S.D.)Bidar.  
3. Ex.P.3- Copy of Hirabai’s application to O.P.No.2.
4. Ex.P.4- Original death certificate of Hirabai.
5. Ex.P.5- Original genealogical tree
6. Ex.P.6-Status report of L.I.C. policy no. 660423236.
7. Ex.P.7- Original letter, dt. 18/12/2015 of the O.Ps to Hirabai.
8. Ex.P.8-Office copy of legal notice.  
9. Ex.P.9- Letter of O.Ps dt. 15/03/2016 to Advocate.
10. Ex.P.10- Letter of O.P.No.2, dt. 18/03/2016 to Advocate

Other two documents are obscured and not marked

 

 Documents produced by the Opponents

 

             Nil  

     

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.

                                                                          

         

mv.