Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/463/2012

THE SPECIAL OFFICER - Complainant(s)

Versus

E. SHANTHI - Opp.Party(s)

V. ANNA LAKSHMI

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                 

F.A.NO.463/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.11/2008, dated 09.07.2009 on the file of DCDRF, Erode)

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015

1. The Special Officer,

    Thindal Malai Primary Agricultural

    Co-operative Bank Ltd, A.A.186,                            M/s.V.Annalakshmi

    Sengodampalayam,                                   Counsel for Appellants/Opp.parties 1 & 2

    Erode 638 009.

2. The Secretary,

    Thindal Malai Primary Agricultural

    Co-operative Bank Ltd, A.A.186,

    Sengodampalayam

    Erode 638 009

-vs-

1. E.Shanthi,

    W/o.Late.A.Elango,

    89-C, Byepass Road,                                           M/s.B.L.Lavanya

    Villarsampatti Post,                                    Counsel for 1^st Respondent/Complainant

    Erode 638 107.

2. The Divisional Manager,

    Pension and Group Scheme department,               M/s.Michaelmary Antony

    Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd,        Counsel for 2^nd Respondent /

    1534/44, Trichy Road,                                                          3^rd Opp.party

    Coimbatore-18.

          The 1^st Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties 1 & 2 filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.11/2009, dated 09.07.2009.

               This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.09.2015, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the appellants.

            The complainant’s deceased husband late Elango being the member of the opposite parties 1 and 2 bank availed various loans for which under Group Insurance scheme premiums were collected for the insurance claim to be made through the 3^rd opposite party, for which the opposite parties 1 and 2 made the premium to the 3^rd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party collected the premium of Rs.2007/- on 27.9.2005 from the complainant’s husband issued receipt for the same.  The complainant’s husband availed mortgage loan No.15765 for which a sum of Rs.4,01,400/- was pending balance towards due as on 27.09.2005 for the coverage of insurance the premium of Rs.2007/- was paid to the 3^rd opposite party and under the hope that the coverage period was extended.  The complainant’s husband died suddenly on 15.8.2006 by Heart Attack.  When the claims were made for the adjustment of loan dues payable for the complainant’s husband though the loan amounts towards housing loan and other loans were adjusted since for those loans the insurance coverage was renewed and enforceable at the time of his death, as far as his mortgage loan is concerned the 3^rd opposite party not renewed the policy for the period from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2007 due to enhancement of premium which was not agreeable to pay by the 2^nd opposite party and thereby the claim was not covered against which the consumer complaint came to be filed by the complainant claiming the relief for the same.

3.       On the basis of both sides materials after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 alone observing that there was lapse on the part of them to take steps for keeping the policy enforceable by paying necessary enhanced premium and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.4,17,102/- towards mortgage loan and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards costs and dismissed the complaint against the 3^rd opposite party.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants/ opposite parties 1 & 2 have come forward with this appeal contended that when the premium for renewal was sent to the 3^rd opposite party at the rate of Rs.10.40 for Rs.8,17,625/- and also sent an additional cheque for enhanced premium on 15.9.2006 which was received by the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party renewed the same only from 1.9.2006 before which the complainant’s husband died on 15.8.2006 and thereby there is no deficiency on their part.

5.       When the appeal is taken up for hearing even though sufficient chances were given for the arguments on behalf of the appellant they have not come forward for the same and after hearing the respondents’ arguments on the basis of materials available, the order being passed on merits.  

6.       It is the admitted case of both sides, that the complainant’s husband being the member of the appellants society / Cooperative bank for the purpose of availing loans and other benefits having arranged insurance coverage for the benefits in case of non- payment of loans by the member to recover from the insurance claim the opposite parties 1 and 2 collected premiums from the members and accordingly the complainants’ husband also availing loans paid premium and that a sum of Rs.2007/- was collected as premium from him on 27.9.2005 and issued receipt under Ex.A1.  The appellants contended that the complainant died on 15.8.2006 and the policies for the three loans are to be renewed from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2007 for which the 3^rd opposite party renewed the policies covering two loans of the complainant’s husband and as far as the 3^rd loan coverage is concerned since the 3^rd opposite party demanded for higher rate of premium for the renewal of the earlier policies in that case the appellants have contended that they have worked the premium at the rate of Rs.5/- per thousand for the sum insured and sent Rs.7,57,060/- earlier under the cheque No.310054 and subsequently when the 3^rd opposite party demanded for higher rate of premium which was worked out at the rate of Rs.10.40 per thousand and sent a cheque for Rs.8,17,625/- in cheque No.310066 dated 15.9.2006 and the same was accepted by the 3^rd opposite party.  But the renewal was effected only from 1.9.2006 which was not under the control of appellants as per their contentions.  This contentions cannot be accepted because it is no doubt that the premium for renewal are to be made before the expiry date of policy i.e., on 30.6.2006 or early or on that date and in this case the cheque was paid with additional premium only on 15.9.2006 and thereby the 3^rd opposite party / 2^nd respondent renewed the policy from 1.9.2006 even 15 days earlier period from the date of cheque.  But unfortunately the beneficiary the complainant’s husband died on 15.8.2006 before the renewal date on 1.9.2006 and thereby this earlier policy become lapsed and this was happened purely because of the lapses on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 while taking steps for renewal of the policy on behalf of their members even though the complainant’s husband paid the amount as per Ex.A1 on 27.9.2005 if the 3^rd opposite party refused to accept the premium as per earlier rates and insisted for enhanced rate of premium, it is for the opposite parties 1 and 2 to make the enhanced rate of premium by collecting the same from their members or by informing the proposal of enhanced premium to get the consent or refusal from the members concerned at once in order to continue the membership in the coverage of insurance which was not done in this case by the appellants would go to show that there were lapses on their part leads to deficiency in service and for which they have to suffer.  Even though they have alleged that the deceased Elango is aware that the policy period was valid only upto 30.6.2006 this cannot be accepted because the complainant contended that the renewal sum of Rs.2007/- was obtained from Elango on 27.9.2005 under Ex.A1 certainly not for the earlier policy because it was already commenced from 1.7.2005 and would be ending 30.6.2006 for which there cannot be a collection after the lapse of 3 months on 27.9.2005.  Hence these pleas are  taken  by the  appellants  only to save their skin.  In those circumstances in view of the foregoing reasons and discussions we are of the view that the District Forum has considered all the relevant materials and came to proper conclusion by allowing the complaint against the appellants with which findings we find no error or infirmity to interfere with the same and thereby this appeal deserved to be dismissed and accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.11/2008 dated 09.07.2009.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                             A.K.ANNAMALAI

   MEMBER                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/D;/PJM/CO.OP BANK