This is a complaint filed by the complainant Suggaladevi U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the two Respondents, Divisional Manager, LIC of India Divisional Office Raichur and Branch Manager LIC of India Branch of Yadgir. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-<br /> <br /> The son of the complainant by name Channappa Wadi had taken a life Insurance Policy bearing No. 660106575 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 14-01-91 from the Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Yadgir. The maturity date is on 14-01-06 and the complainant is the nominee. The policy holder Channappa Wadi was regularly paying the premium of the of the said policy till December 1994. On 18-12-94 her son Channappa Wadi suddenly left his house without informing any member of his family and since then his whereabouts are not known to anybody and he has not been heard. In this regard a missing persons complaint was filed by her another son Anil Kumar in M.B.Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga on 21-12-94 which was registered as Crime No. 109/94. The family of the complainant have made all efforts to trace her son Channappa Wadi and his whereabouts are not known to any one and he is not been heard of since more than seven years. Soon after the dis-appearance of Channappa Wadi the Opponent was informed about his missing and the Opponent advised the complainant to continue to remit the premium of the policy. Accordingly the premium amount of the policy has been remitted up-to January 2002 by the complainant.<br /> <br /> The life assured Channappa Wadi even has not been heard for the last seven years as such there arises a presumption in law regarding death of said Channappa Wadi. If the opponent believes that said Channappa alive, then it is for the Opponent to prove that, the said Channappa Wadi is alive. On 29-12-02 the husband of the complainant by name Guranna Wadi submitted an application to the opponent to make the payment of the policy amount along with accumulated bonus to the complainant who is the nominee under the policy. Thereafter, in spite of repeated request through letters, the opponent failed to settle her claim and demanded the complainant to furnish the proper and indisputable proof of death of Channappa Wadi and a decree of the court to the effect that the said Channappa Wadi should be presumed to be dead.<br /> <br /> The complainant had filed a petition for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of policy amount before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Ydagir in P & S.C. No. 1/04 and the same was granted in favour of complainant as per order dated 21-06-04. The complainant after the grant of Succession Certificate by the court empowering her to receive the policy amount approached the opponents to settle her claim. But the Opponents are still unnecessarily insisting for production of a decree presuming the death of life assured. The Succession Certificate granted by court is itself a proof of Civil death of the Channappa Wadi and without proof of death of a person no Succession Certificate would be granted by the court. The document sought by the Opponents to consider her claim is not only unnecessarily, but uncalled for. The complainant is a very aged lady and because of failure of the Opponent to settle her claim she has been put to great mental agony and torture. The acts of Opponents in failing to settle her claim within a reasonable time, amounts to deficiency and negligency in the service of the Opponents, Hence for all these reasons the complainant has prayed for direction to the Opponents to settle her claim and to pay the amount due under policy along with Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and accrued interest at 18% P.A. till realization.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opponents have filed a common written statement contending that the Opponent No-2 received a communication dated 29-01-02 from the complainant informing about disappearance of policy holder Channappa Wadi and the copy of the complaint dated 21-12-94 lodged with the PSI, M.B.Nagar P.S. Gulbarga about missing of said Channappa Wadi was also received. The Opponents vide letter dated 18-03-02 informed the complainant about the provisions of Indian Evidence Act with regard to presumption of death and advised her to continue to pay the premiums as and when they fall due up to the date of declaration by the court. The Opponents again vide letter dated 10-07-02 requested the complainant to submit declaration by the court regarding death of life assured Channappa Wadi the complainant instead of submitting the court decree, has submitted the death certificate issued by Registrar of Birth and Death, Yadgir. On verification of death certificate and the intimation letter they found that date of death is 10-01-02 presumption of death intimation letter dated 29-01-02 but comparing both dates, the date of death is old. Thus the claimant tried to cheat the Corporation by submitting false certificate. The claimants have to approach court of law for a declaration of presumption of death of life assured Channappa Wadi and Opponent requested the complainant to produce the declaration of presumption of death of life assured from the court and the same is not produced by the complainant till date. Hence appropriate decision regarding admissibility of claim will be taken on production of court order.<br /> <br /> The complainant is the nominee under the policy and claim is payable to her when admitted. What is required is in disputable proof of death or a decree from a court declaring that the life assured presumed to be dead. Hence the Opponent called for the declaration from the court regarding presumption of death of the life assured. The complainant has not submitted the said requirement. Therefore there is no deficiency in service of the Opponents. The delay is due to non-compliance of requirements by the complainant. Hence for all these reasons the Opponents have prayed for dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit as her chief examination and has got marked (8) documents at Ex.P.1 to P.8. The Opponents in rebuttal have filed sworn affidavit of its manager of Respondent No-1 Office as evidence and got marked one document at Ex.R.1 and closed its side.<br /> <br /> 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of<br /> service by the Respondents in not settling her claim as nominee under the policy as alleged?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. It is not in dispute that son of the complainant by name Channappa Wadi had taken LIC No. 660106575 for the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 14-01-91 and the complainant is the nominee of the policy and the maturity date of the said policy is on 14-01-06. It is also not in dispute that on the representation made by the complainant about missing of her son, policyholder and not knowing his whereabouts, the Opponents asked her to go on making payment of policy premium and to produce court decree presuming the of life assured. She has remitted the premium up to January 2002. It is also not in dispute that another son of the complainant by name Anil kumar being the brother of policy holder Channappa had filed a missing persons complaint which was registered as Crime No. 109/94 of M.B.Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga.<br /> It is the case of the complainant that on 20-01-02 the husband of the complainant by name Channappa Wadi had submitted an application to the Opponents to make the payment of the policy amount along with accumulated bonus to the complainant as she is nominee under policy and in spite of several repeated request oral and through letters, Opponent failed to settle her claim and the opponents demanded to furnish a decree of the court regarding declaration of presumption of death of Channappa Wadi. Subsequently the complainant filed a petition for grant of Succession Certificate for settlement of her claim. The Opponents are still unnecessarily insisting for production of a decree presumption the death of the life assured, which is not only unnecessary, but uncalled for. The complainant has produced policy bond at Ex.P.1. Copy of FIR in Crime No. 109/04 of MB Nagar Police Station Gulbarga with complaint of Anilkumar at Ex.P.2 and P.2(A). Office copy of Application filed by Gurranna Wadi to the Opponent No-2 Bank dated 29-01-02, at Ex.P.3. Two letters of Opponent No-2 dated 10-07-02 and 18-03-02 at Ex.P.4 and P.5. Copy of letter dated 31-07-04 issued by the complainant-Advocate for claimanant at Ex.P.6. Copy of Succession Certificate granted by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Yadgir in P & SC No. 1/04 dated 21-06-04 at Ex.P.7 and the letter of Opponent No-2 dated 27-08-04 at Ex.P.8. <br /> <br /> 7. Ex.P.7 is copy of Succession Certificate issued by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) Yadgir in P & SC No.1/04 dated 21-06-04. A perusal of it shows that the present complainant Suggaladevi had filed an application for issue of Succession Certificate for claiming the very policy amount of Rs. 50,000/- in LIC policy No. 660106575 under Ex.P.1 and the Court after enquiry has issued Succession Certificate authorizing/empowering the complainant to receive the said policy amount due to death of policy holder Channappa Wadi S/o. Gurranna Wadi R/o. Yadgir who died on 10-01-02 at Yadgir. This means the Succession Certificate has been issued on the death of policyholder who died on 10-01-02. The Opponent Insurance Company has also filed copy of death certificate at Ex.R.1.This also shows the date of death of policyholder Channappa Wadi as on 10-01-02. Ex.P.6 is the letter dated 31-07-04 of the Advocate for the complainant to the Opponent No-1 for producing Succession Certificate issued by Civil Judge (Jr.dn) Yadgir in favour of complainant Suggaladevi in reply to the letter dated 10-07-02 issued by Opponent No-2 Bank for settlement of claim under policy. So when the Opponent Corporation was made known about a Succession Certificate issued by the Competent Court of Law in favour of the complainant then there was no other go for the Opponents than to settle the claim of the complainant, especially when this Succession Certificate having not been challenged by any person. Hence the contention of the Opponent Corporation that the complainant should produce Civil Court decree presuming the death of life assured as per law and thereby repudiating the claim of the complainant does not stand to reason. Therefore we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondent in not settling her claim and so Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant has sought for direction to the Opponents to release the amount under policy with all benefits along with Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and interest at 18% P.A.. So far as the claim policy amount with benefits is concerned, in view of finding on Point No-1 the complainant is entitled for the same. Regarding granting of Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and interest at 18% P.A. is concerned it shows the complainant is claiming compensation under both heads, but she is entitled any one of such relief. So having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> The Opponent Corporation shall pay the policy amount of Rs. 50,000/- with all benefits to the complainant-Nominee, along with compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards damages.<br /> <br /> The Opponent Corporation shall comply this order within (5) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum On 28 -10-05.)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampannagouda, <br /> Member<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Kavita Patil, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur<br />