BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Monday the 25th day of September, 2006
CC No. 16/2006
D. Rama Devi, 35 years, W/o. Late Madhusudhan Rao,
Sharen Nagar, Kurnool.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
- Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd,
H.D.C.T Complex, R.S.Road, Kurnool.
- The Secretary, Motor Workers Union,
- Near Bellary Chourastha, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri P. Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party No.1 to pay policy amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant’s husband D. Madhusudhan Rao, was member of Kurnool District Motor Worker’s Union, who has taken a Janatha Group insurance policy for its members on 28.9.2001 bearing policy No. 611500/47/01/00536 and the policy commenced from 28.9.2001 to 27.9.2006. The complainant’s husband died in a Train accident on 2.12.2003 at about 22 hours between Dupadu and Ulindakonda Railway station. As per conditions of the policy the nominee is entitled for insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.The opposite party No.2 intimated the accident to opposite party No.1 and claim form was forwarded to opposite party No.1 on 1.1.2004 along with FIR postmortem report etc, nearly two years after forwarding the claim the opposite party No.1 did neither paid claim amount nor repudiated the claim. Being vexed the complainant resorted to the Forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of her case the complainant relied on the following document Viz (1) office copy of policy issued to opposite party No.2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and Ex X.1 FIR, Ex X.2 inquest report ExX.3 postmortem report and Ex X.4 final report. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and suitably replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and filed denial written version. The opposite party No.2 remained absent through out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 denies the complaint averments as not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that the deceased was a resident of Shareef Nagar, Kurnool and there is no need for the deceased to go to Dupadu Railway station, it is clear case of suicide by the deceased and the opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. It further submits that the place of incident is not a residential locality and complainant created false documents in collusion with investigating agency in order to make wrongful gain and the police also biased one, and lastly submits that the complainant has to prove the validity of the policy at the time of incident and the claimed amount is excessive and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party No.1 in support of his case relied on following document Viz (1) Photographs along with its negatives, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and third opposite party affidavit of S.K.A Khadar. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and opposite party No.1 and third party suitable replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties:-
8. The first contention of the complainant is that her husband D. Madhusudhan
Rao who was covered under the Janatha Group Insurance Policy issued by opposite party No.1 died in a train accident on 2.12.2003 at about 22 hours and she is entitled to the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But on the other side the opposite party in their written version averments submits that the death of the deceased is not accidental but it is purely committal of suicide and the documents relied by the complainant are concocted having colluded with police, Sarpanch and other union leaders in order to have wrongful gain from the opposite party No.1. To substantiate the above contentions the opposite party No.1 relied on the sworn affidavit of third party S.K.A.Khadar, who stated that he was the driver of Railway Engine bearing No. 15066 on 2.12.2003, while proceeding to Dhone and near 258/10 Kms in between Dupadu to Ullindakonda Railway Station one person was lying on the railway track keeping his head on the railway track and the said driver applied brakes to avert the incident but could not do so and the railway engine run over the person lying on the track and on observing the said incident it was found that the head of the person was separated from the neck and hand was fractured and the same was intimated to railway police. The said sworn affidavit of S.K.A. Khadar was subjected to interrogatories and the same was rebutted by giving suitable replies.
9. The counsel for opposite party No.1 strongly contended that there was no level crossing at the place of incident and the same is clearly shown in Ex B.1 Photographs nor the area near the incident/ 258/10 Kms is a residential area one and there is no need for the deceased to cross the railway track at that time and place. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide and the third party affidavit of S.K.A Khadar is tobe believed as he is the direct witness to the incident. The complainant merely filed Ex X.1 to Ex X.4 it doesn’t mean that the contends there of are necessarily true, no documents or direct evidence is produced in support of above exhibits, hence, the above exhibits filed by the complainant cannot be looked into nor can be relied. Hence, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide and death is not an accidental one hence, the complainant is not remaining entitled to the assured amount.
10 The second contention of the complainant is that non settlement of the claim by opposite party No.1 in the facts of the case amounts of deficiency in rendering service. The complainant submitted claim form to opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 did not repudiated the claim before to the filing of this complaint by the complainant in the Forum, normal period during which the opposite party is expected to repudiated the claim is three months from the date of submitting claim form. In this case the complainant submitted claim form on 1.1.2004 and the complaint is filed in the Forum on 1.12.2005 and the explanation given by the opposite party No.1 in their written arguments is that concerned file was misplaced and the person who deals with the said file has taken voluntary retirement and he did not put up the file for settlement, it is the internal matter of the company and the complainant is not expected to know the reasons of their internal matter. Therefore, there is delay in repudiating the claim of the complainant and the said delay is not properly explained by opposite party No.1. Hence, there is deficiency of in rendering service on part of opposite party No.1 in not informing the complainant as to what happened to her claim. This is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immence torture and agony and for which the opposite party No.1 has to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to compensate .
11. To sum up as the complainant miserable failed to prove her case that her husband death as an accidental one she is not remaining entitled to assured amount. As the opposite parties failed to repudiated the claim of the complainant within the time the complainant is remaining entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/-
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for delay in not repudiating the claim of the complainant along with costs of Rs.5,00/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in the Open Bench this the 22nd day of September, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Office copy of policy issued to opposite party No.2.
Ex X.1 FIR in Cr.No. 66/03 of Railway Police, Kurnool.
Ex X.2 Inquest report in Cr No. 66/03.
Ex X.3 Postmortem report.
Ex X.4 Final report.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Photograph with its negative.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri P. Siva sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
- The Secretary, Motor Workers Union, Near Bellary Chourastha, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
