BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                           : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI :      MEMBER

APPEAL NOs. 1127/2012 & 1453/2012

                                                           APPEAL NO.1127/2012

V/s

V/s

COMMON ORDER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER

1.      Both these appeals are taken together for disposal since both these appeals arise out of one impugned order. The appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has preferred an Appeal No.1127/2012 and the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has preferred an Appeal No.1453/2012 to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission dt.20.03.2012 passed in CC.No.191/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar.  In order to avoid repetition, both these appeals are being disposed-off in a Common Order.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are hereunder;

It is the case of the complainant that the husband of the complainant Mr. G. Veeraswamy was the SB Account holder in the Syndicate Bank and Master Policy Insurance Holder for a period from 14.02.2009 to 14.02.2010 and the sum assured was Rs.1,25,000/- and the insurance premium was paid.  The husband of the complainant died on 14.04.2010 leaving behind him the complainant and two children.  Immediately after the death, the complainant approached the insurance company along with relevant documents for settlement of the insurance amount.  As it was not complied with, the complainant issued a legal notice to the insurance company on 18.02.2010.  For which the insurance company sent a cheque for Rs.3,514/- on 21.05.2011 and the rest of the claim has been rejected stating that the premium which was to be paid from SB Account of the deceased from 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2011 from the Syndicate Bank, it is not paid.  There was sufficient amount in the SB account of the deceased.  It is the responsibility of the insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the District Commission through their counsel and filed their separate version.  The Opposite Party No.1 contended that the complainant is totally a stranger and not the wife of the deceased who has insured his life.  The insurance policy and SB account f the deceased was admitted and contended that the deceased has not paid the premium regularly.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      In the version, the Opposite Party No.2 admitted the insurance policy of the deceased.  Further contended that the nominee under the policy is somebody else and not the complainant and she is not the wife of the deceased.  Further denied all the allegations made against him in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.      After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint. 

6.      Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants/ Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 are in appeals separately.  Heard the arguments from appellants in both cases.  Inspite of sufficient time has been granted, the respondent has not advanced his arguments.

7.      Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the husband of the Respondent No.1 Sri G. Veeraswamy was the SB account holder of the Syndicate Bank and Master Police Insurance holder of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., for a period from 14.02.2009 to 14.02.2010 and sum assured was Rs.1,25,000/- and the insurance premium was Rs.5,000/- was paid.  It is also an admitted fact that the husband of Respondent No.1 died on 14.04.2010 and after his death, the Respondent No.1 approached the insurance company along with necessary documents and requested for payment of insurance amount.  However, the insurance company was not complied the same, hence, Respondent No.1 issued a legal notice on 18.02.2010.  Subsequently, the insurance company sent a cheque for Rs.3,514/- on 21.05.2011 to the Respondent No.1 and the rest of the claim was rejected by the insurance company stating that the premium which was to be paid for the year 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2011 from the SB account of the husband of Respondent No.1 from Syndicate Bank, which was not paid and the policy was in lapsed condition.  The further contention of the insurance company is that the Respondent No.1 is totally a stranger and not the wife of the deceased who has insured his life. 

8.      Perused the order passed by the District Commission.  We noticed that the Respondent No.1 has established her legal heirship by producing Heirship Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Revenue Department dt.01.06.2010 and after perused the Heirship Certificate, the District Commission came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 Smt. Indramma is the wife of deceased and Naresh Babu and Chandana are the children of deceased.  This Certificate was not challenged or denied by appellants and Respondent No.2.  Moreover, on perusal of the statement of account produced by the Syndicate Bank we agree that on 06.02.2010 there was insufficient balance in the account of the deceased, but on 27.02.2010 there was sufficient balance in the account of the deceased to transfer the policy premium amount to the insurance company.  Every insurance policy has 30 days grace period to pay the premium.  On 14.02.2010 there was no sufficient balance in the policy holder’s SB account.  Within 30 days of grace period, the bank should transfer the premium amount to the insurance company for the period from 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2011, but, the bank has not made any such effort which is the clear cut mistake of the bank for which Respondent No.1 suffered a lot.  When the deceased authorized the bank to transfer the policy premium amount to the insurance company, it is the duty of the bank to transfer the amount within time.  For the mistake of the Bank, why R-1/complainant should suffer?  Hence, the R-1/complainant is entitled for the policy amount and also compensation.

9.      The District Commission rightly concluded that Respondent No.1/complainant, Naresh Babu and Chandana are the Class-1 heirs and each are entitled to 1/3 share in the policy amount.  However, it requires some modification.  The District Commission has directed both the insurance company and bank to pay 1/3 share of the policy amount to the Respondent No.1/complainant and 1/3 share in the name of Naresh Babu and remaining 1/3 share in the name of Chandana under guardianship of Respondent No.1/ complainant in the nationalized bank.

10.    In the present case, the husband of the Respondent No.1/complainant paid premium with the insurance company not to the bank.  Hence, in our opinion directing the insurance company to pay 1/3 share of Rs.1,25,000/- policy amount after deducting Rs.3,514/- which was already paid by insurance company and Rs.5,000/- premium amount from 14.02.2010 to 14.02.2011 to the Respondent No.1/complainant and deposit 1/3 share in the name Naresh Babu and remaining 1/3 share in the name of Chandan under the guardianship of Respondent No.1/complainant in a Nationalized Bank co-extensive with their majority and directed to the bank to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for their mistakes to the Respondent No.1/ complainant.  Moreover both parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- litigation charges to the Respondent No.1/ complainant.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

 The appeal is disposed-off.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.

Keep the original Order in Appeal No.1127/2012 and the copy of the same in Appeal No.1453/2012.

Forward free copies of the Order to both parties.

                                                          Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

                                                   MEMBER                                   JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*