PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.04.2012 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 433 of 2010  – Andhra Bank Vs. Smt. Gampala Bharati & Ors. by which while dismissing the appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that late Gampala Veeeranjaneyulu, husband of the complainant No. 1 and father of complainant Nos. 2 & 3, and son of Complainant NO. 4 was having a savings bank account with the appellant bank linked with life insurance policy issued by OPs 2 & 3 insurance company.  As per the conditions in case of natural death of account holder an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was payable and in case of accidental death double the benefit was payable.  He died on 31.10.2005 in a road accident.  A case in crime No. 147/2005 was registered by Naidupet police station followed by inquest and post-mortem examination.  Intimation of death was made directing them to settle the claim.  However, the appellant bank gave reply stating that neither the death intimation nor documents were received.  Immediately they again gave a report on 4.11.2005 along with FIR and other documents however, the claim was not settled.  Imputing deficiency in service they filed the complaint claiming Rs. 2 lakhs covered under the policy together with interest, compensation and costs.

3.      The appellant bank resisted the case while admitting that the complainant was a nominee of her husband.  There was a tie up with the insurance company on behalf of the account holders wherein they were entitled to certain amounts in case of death.  The complainant did not intimate the death of her husband nor submitted FIR, inquest etc.  The rules and conditions stipulate that intimation of accident must be made within 90 days, and claim has to be made within 180 days.  Rule 8 stipulates that the claim has to be settled by the insurance company and that the bank is only a facilitator.  Since no documents whatsoever were submitted, bank was not liable to pay any amount.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.      OP Nos. 2 & 3 insurance company equally resisted the case.  While admitting that they have issued life insurance policy to the account holders they alleged that they did not receive any intimation or claim papers from the appellant.  As per rule -28 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intimation should be given to the bank within 90 days from the date of death with duly filled in application along with requisite documents.  Since the claim papers were not submitted, it could not know the death, in order to pay the amount.  There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite parties to pay Rs. 2 lakh covered under the policy.  Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

6.      None appeared for R- 1 to 4 but received written arguments sent by them.

7.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for   Respondents No. 5 & 6 and perused record.

8.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was not service provider and settlement of claim was to be done by insurance company even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against him also and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside to his extent.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

9.      It is not disputed that complainant’s husband Late Gampala Veeeranjaneyulu opened ‘AB Jeevan Abhaya Scheme account with the petitioner wherein he was entitled to the benefit of insurance coverage upto Rs. 1 lakh in case of natural death and Rs. 2 lakhs in case of accidental death.  It is also not disputed that Gampala Veeeranjaneyulu died in an accident of 31-10-2005 and as per insurance coverage legal heirs were entitled to receive Rs. 2 lakh.

10.    Complainants being legal heirs of deceased filed complaint before District Forum and District Forum allowed complaint against all the opposite parties.   LIC has not preferred appeal against the order of the District Forum and that order has attained finality against LIC and only petitioner bank has challenged order before State Commission.

11.    Now, the core question to be decided is whether petitioner bank is  deficient in providing service to the complainant.

12.    Deceased while opening account on 08-10-2003 signed declaration in which he admitted that he has read and accepted rules of the scheme binding upon him.  As per rules of the scheme, legal heirs were required to give intimation of death to the bank branch within 90 days and submit duly filled claim form along with documents to P&GS Unit within 180 days through respective Andhra Bank Branch.

13.    Thus, it becomes clear that complainant’s were required to give intimation to the bank within 90 days from the death and were required to submit claim along with documents with the LIC within 180 days.

14.    Complainant ascertain that they gave intimation to the bank vide Exhibit A-5 dated 04-11-2005 and reminder vide Exhibit A-6 dated 29.12.2005 but have not placed receipt of these documents by the bank authorities.  Not only this notice dated 19-02-2008 issued by complainant’s counsel to Andhra Bank does not contain reference to aforesaid intimations and in the reply to the aforesaid notice Andhra Bank specifically pleaded that complainants did not intimate death of Gampala Veeeranjaneyulu along with documents to the bank. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complainants intimated to the bank within stipulated period and in absence of such intimation bank was not under an obligation to intimate LIC about death of Gampala Veeeranjaneyulu.  Petitioner was only a facilitator in forwarding claim and not liable to make payment of claim. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of petitioner bank.  Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

15.    As LIC has not preferred any appeal against the order of the District Forum and order of District Forum attains finality against the LIC, complainants are free to recover amount from LIC and LIC in turn is free to initiate proceedings against the bank for any deficiency if at all in the appropriate forum.

16.    Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 04-04-2012 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal NO. 433/2010 – Andhra Bank Vs. Smt. Gampala Bharati & Ors. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 20-01-2010 passed in complaint case no. 59/2008 is set aside to the extent of petitioner with no order as to costs.