BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-
HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.1657 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.300 OF 2002 District Forum,
GUNTUR.
Between-
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Represented by its Branch Manager
Opposite Krishna Picture Palace,
Kothapeta, Guntur. Appellant/
Opp. Party 3
And
1. Gopisetty Venkateswarlu,
S/o.Kotaiah
Gadevaripalli,
Karempudi Mandal
Guntur District. ..Respondent/
Complainant
2. The Secretary,
Sankarapuram Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society,
Karempudi Mandal,
Guntur District. ..Respondent/
Opp.party No.1
3. The Branch Manager,
Guntur District Co-operative
Central bank Limited,
Gurajala Branch,
Gurajala,
Guntur District. ..Respondent/
Opp.party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant - Mr.R.Briz Mohan Singh
Counsel for the Respondents-Mr.B.Somasekhar-R1
R2-Mr.M.Hari Babu
QUORUM -THE HON’BLE SRI.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order - (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
---
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.300/2002 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s wife, Pitchamma, during her life time was a member of first opposite party society with general Number 1720 and obtained a loan from 1st opposite party under loan account No.631 by paying required amounts to a tune of Rs.6,845/- which includes her contribution of premia for personal life risk coverage policy i.e. amount of Rs.21/- under receipt No.787188 dated 26-6-2000. The aforesaid personal life risk coverage policy premia i.e. Rs.21/- was remitted by opposite parties to 3rd opposite party. On 7-11-2000 at about 3.00 p.m. while Smt.Pitchamma was returning home from field, she was bitten by a snake and succumbed to death even though she was shifted to primary health center of Gudlavaripalem. The Medical Officer incharge of P.H. centre examined Smt.Pitchamma and declared her dead and issued a certificate to that effect on 7-11-2000. It is the case of the complainant that his wife was covered under policy issued by 3rd opposite party and therefore they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00 lakh to the legal heirs. Inspite of repeated requests, opposite parties failed to pay the amount under the policy, therefore, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties and got issued a legal notice on 7-8-2002 calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.1.00/- under the policy with interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of death of his wife till the date of realization and also costs. Third opposite party sent a reply on 20-8-2002 stating that they had closed the claim as ‘no claim’. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1.25,000/- with interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of death of his wife i.e. from 7-11-2000 till realization together with compensation and costs.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter which was adopted by opposite party No.1 and admitted that Smt.G.Pitchamma, wife of the complainant, was a member of the 1st respondent society and on 14-6-1999 and that she obtained a loan of Rs.5,700/- under loan account No.631 and paid the entire amount on 26-6-2000 and again on 27-7-2000 she obtained a loan of Rs.7,000/- and while this loan is subsiding, she died on 7-11-2000 due to snake bite as reported by the complainant. He submitted that under memorandum of agreement dated 4-4-2001 executed by and between them and 3rd opposite party and 1st opposite party, they proposed a group personal accident policy for individual members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, LCS and CRB against the accidental death or accidental disablement for the insured sum of Rs.1 lakh or Rs.50,000/-as case may be by 1st party to the agreement to cover only the members listed and furnished by the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, LSCS, CRB furnished by 2nd party to the agreement. As per the terms and conditions of personal accident policy Rs.21/- is collected for each member for sum insured of Rs.1 lakh and Rs.11/- for Rs.50,000/- towards accidental disablement as the case may be. As per the terms and conditions of the above memorandum of agreement , the policy covers all subsisting members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society of the age group of 18-70 years. The list of names of all members was furnished to 1st party by 2nd party along with premium by way of demand draft favouring 3rd opposite party and the period of insurance commences from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001 for all those insured persons for whom premium was paid to be covered from the date of receipt of premium by 3rd opposite party Accordingly opposite party No.2 through head Office of Guntur District Co-operative Central bank covering group of members listed with (P.A.) policy paid a premium amount of Rs.51,81,300/- and service tax of Rs.2,59,065/- making in all Rs.54,40,365 (the list of member borrowers) of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. The Guntur District Co-operative Central Bank, Guntur enclosed the total number of members covered for covering death under the policy for the period commencing from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001. They submitted that the job of opposite parties 1 and 2 ends with arranging and obtaining policy with 3rd opposite party covering personal accident scheme policy for listed, Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society members on whose behalf premium at Rs.21/- and Rs.11/- respectively per head towards premium was paid. So after issuance of the policy by 3rd opposite party, it is a matter between party insured family member and 3rd opposite party as insurer for settlement of any claim as per the terms of the policy. They submitted that on receiving information of death from the complainant by opposite party and after obtaining necessary documents in proof of death and name of person and document showing that the deceased is a member of the society, who was insured and the death was due to snake bite, which is an accidental death together with F.I.R., P.M. and other referred documents as per the memorandum of agreement sent them through second opposite parties to 3rd opposite party and fulfilled the requirements furnished. They submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, 3rd opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00 lakh for the snake bite and submitted that they are not necessary parties and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
Opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that opposite parties 1 and 2 have not remitted the premium amount of Rs.21/- to them and therefore they sent a reply on 20-8-2002 stating that they have closed the claim for non-remittance of the premium amount for the year 2000-2001. They further submitted that the complainant has not submitted the F.I.R., post mortem report of the life assured to substantiate his claim and in the absence of the above reports, they are not liable to pay any amount.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 and B1 to B8 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing 3rd opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of order to the complainant towards accident policy together with interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 18-10-2002 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.3 preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum failed to see that Ex.A7 clearly demonstrates that no premium was paid in respect of any member of SANKARAPURAM PACS and hence there was no cover provided under the policy in respect of its loanee members including Pitchamma. He submitted that the District Forum gave a perverse finding that payment of Rs.1,48,554/- under Ex.A7 is only in respect of Loanee Members of SANKARAPURAM PACS without there being any evidence on record and this finding is against the tally of Rs.44,36,166/- which is exclusive of the premium in respect of the said loanee members. He also submitted that the court below did not take into consideration the requirement of Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. in cases of snake bite and prayed to allow the appeal. The learned counsel further contended that there was no concluded contract and that in Sl.No.31 of Ex.B8, under 261 number Shankarapuram is listed as ‘0’ premium received and therefore, Pitchamma is not covered.
We have perused the material on record. Ex.A1 is the pass book issued in favour of G.Pitchamma on 07-11-2000 and Ex.A2 is the receipt dated 26-6-2000 issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.6,845/- which evidenced receipt of Rs.21/- and Ex.A3 is the medical certificate confirming the death of the said Pitchamma on 7-11-2000 due to snake bite. The complainant with these documents has been able to establish that an amount of Rs.21/- was deducted towards insurance premium and paid to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 in their affidavit stated that as a benevolent measure to help the farmer members of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 4-4-2001 seeking coverage for all the eligible member loanees of opposite party No.1, the policy period being 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001. Second opposite party further submits that an amount of Rs.54,40,365/- i.e. premium of Rs.51,81,300/- and Rs.2,59,065/- towards service charges was paid vide demand draft dated 12-4-2000 to third opposite party, insurance company, who issued policy No.432102/Group PA/10423/2001 dated 24-4-2000 covering the group of members of opposite party No.1 for personal accident death to those members from whose account Rs.21/- was deducted towards premium. Opposite party No.2 stated in their affidavit that loan No.631 pertains to the said G.Pitchamma and she is covered under the Group Personal Accident Policy. The post mortem report, F.I.R., death extract were submitted to first opposite party, who remitted it to the third opposite party, insurance company and sent a copy of the same to the second opposite party. We also observe from the record that the second opposite party vide letter dated 3-6-2000 sent an amount of Rs.1,48,544/- to the third opposite party, which is in addition to the premium of Rs.42,87,612/- already paid. Opposite party No.3 did not choose to file any documentary evidence to state under which society’s head this additional premium of Rs.1,48,544/- was received. Since the contention of the complainant that Rs.1,48,544/- was paid and only thereafter the policy was issued is un-contraverted, we are of the view that the District Forum based on this letter has rightly observed that only after receipt of the entire premium fromof the co-operative societies, the policy was issued. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER. MALE MEMBER.
JM Dated 15-7-2008
