BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member
Thursday the 01st day of October , 2009
C.C. 10/09
Between:
D. Dasthagiramma, W/o. Late Dedekula Pedda Hussaini alias Dedukula Hussaini,
H.No.1/9, Udumalapuram Village, Nandyal Mandal, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Golden Multi Services Club Limited, By its Branch Manager,
D.No.40/384, 3rd Floor, Shop No.16 to 18, Ucon Plaza , Park Road, Kurnool 518001.
2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, By its Senior Divisional Manager, Division III,
D.No. 8, Indian Exchange Place (Gr.Floor), Kolkata 700001, West Bengal State,
3. M/.s National Insurance Company Limited, By its Senior Divisional Manager,
2/78, Saptagiri complex, Main Road, Anatapur Town, Anantapur District.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. M. Azmathulla , Advocate for opposite party No. 1 , and Sri. D.A.Anees Ahamed , Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 2 is called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)
C.C.10/09
1. Complaint filed under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant
was wife of late Dudekula Pedda Hussaini @ Dedekula Hussaini who died on 04-05-2008 due to electric shock at udumalpuram , Nandyal Taluk , Kurnool District . During his life time she joined with opposite party No.1. There was contract between opposite party No.1 and 2 for providing insurance policy by opposite party No. 2 to the member of opposite party No. 1 after collecting the premium from opposite party No. 1 . The opposite party No. 1 used to remit the premium amount of the members to opposite party No. 2 . The complainants husband was allotted policy bearing No.100300/42/04/8200012 commenced on 08-10-2004 expired by 07-10-2014. It was a Group Personal Accident Policy . The object of the policy was for providing a financial aid to the nominees under the policy.
The complainant was nominee under the policy. After the death of her husband the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and submitted all the documents for her claim to opposite party No. 1 . The opposite party No. 1 forwarded all the documents along with insurance certificate to opposite party No.2 for settle the claim of the deceased. The opposite party No. 2 appointed an investigator from the office of opposite party No.3 . But the opposite party No. 2 repudiated the claim by way of letter dated 21-08-2008 on the ground that her claim had been received after lapse of 2e months and 3 days and so there was delay in submitting the claim and hence the claim was not settled . There was no fault on the part of the complainant and the complainant submitted all the papers to opposite party No. 1 within the time. It was a false ground taken by opposite party No. 2 . Therefore the complaint was filed for Rs.1,00,000/- under Group Janatha Personal Accident Policy with 18% p.a and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and cost.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed the written version that the collected the premium and forwarded to opposite party No.2 who issued certificates . The entire liability was on opposite party No.2 but not on opposite party No.1 because the policy and certificate was issued by opposite party No.2 . The opposite party No. 1 received any documents they would be forwarded to the insurance company for settlement of the claim. The opposite party No. 1 had no personal knowledge of the death of the husband of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 forwarded all the necessary documents received from the complainant to opposite party No. 2 for settlement of the claim. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 on 25-06-2008 , the opposite party No. 1 issued claim form . The complainant submitted the claim that the claim form . On 10-07-2008 and the same was endorsed by opposite party No. 1 on the reverse of the claim form and forwarded immediately to opposite party No. 2 . So the opposite party No. 1 has done its job without any delay. There was no specific relief against opposite party No. 1 and there was no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1. As per the memorandum of understanding dated 01-01-2001 between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 1 . The opposite party No. 2 was exclusive authority to settle the claim. Therefore the claim against the opposite party No. 2 was not maintainable and the complaint may be dismissed without costs.
4. The opposite party No. 2 was set ex-parte on 12-03-2009 . The opposite party No. 3 filed a written version that the complainant was the member of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 took personal accident policy from opposite party No. 2 and it was in force on the date of death of the deceased. On 04-05-2008 has to be proved by the complainant . The opposite party No. 3 was not a party to the alleged policy filed by the complainant and it had not received the premium nor issued the policy. So the claim was contained . The death was happened on 04-05-2008 and the claim was preferred on 15-05-2008 and the claim was repudiated on the ground that it was submitted beyond the said time of 13 days from the date of death of the insured. The complainant followed the terms and conditions of the policy and hence it was repudiated . The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and hence the compliant may be dismissed without costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are
(i) Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
(iii) To what relief ?.
6 On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 and A2 were marked . No documents have been filed on behalf of the opposite parties.
7. Point No. 1 & 2: The complainant was the wife of one Dudekula Pedda Hussaini who died on 04-05-2008 due to electric shock accidentally. She was the nominee of deceased her husband . During the life time the deceased joined as a member of opposite party No. 1 club who had a contact with opposite party No. 2 for insurance coverage to its members. As such the deceased was issued a policy No. 100300/42/04/8200012 . The policy was for Rs.1,00,000/- commenced on 08-10-2004 till 07-10-2014. After the death of her husband the complainant was a nominee approached opposite party No. 1 who issued the claim forms to settle the claim by opposite party No. 2. The complainant submitted the forms along with original insurance certificate to opposite party No. 1 who forwarded to opposite party No. 2 to settle the claim . Ex.A1 was the copy of the letter addressed by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 to settle the claim . In Ex.A1 the opposite party No. 1 mentioned that the completed claim form , original insurance certificate , copy of the FIR inquest report and P.M certificate and death certificate were enclosed to settle the claim it was on 15-07-2008 . On 09-09-2008 the opposite party No. 1 wrote a letter under Ex.A2 that the claim was repudiated by opposite party No. 2 on 21-01-2008 . The written version of opposite party No. 3 was that the written version / written arguments of the opposite party No. 3 was the complainant filed to submit the claim form along with documents within 90 days from the date of death and did not inform the death within 30 days of the death. The complainant submitted the documents to opposite party No. 1 and forwarded all the necessary documents and claim form to opposite party No. 2 on 15-07-2008 . The date of death was 04-05-2008 . So the claim form with documents was submitted with 90 days . The complainant was an illiterate women and therefore they had no knowledge to give intimation of death within 30 days . It was not a ground to repudiated the claim . The opposite party No. 3 failed to submit the documents submitted by the complainant to opposite party No. 2 . Therefore in these circumstances there is deficiency of service on part of opposite party No. 2 and 3.
8. Point No. 3 :- In the result , the compliant is allowed directing the opposite party No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest at 9% p.a from the date of complaint till date of realization and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The case against R1 is dismissed without cots.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 1st day of October , 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC) MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties :
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Copy of letter dated 15-07-2008 addressed by OP.No.1 to OP.No.2
Ex.A2. Repudiation letter dated 21-08-2008 addressed by OP.No.2 to the complainant
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) MALE MEMBER
/ Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
