BETWEEN:

1. Kavuri Aparna, W/o. late Seshagiri Rao

2. Kavuri Jayanth, S/o. late Seshagiri Rao

3. Kavuri Shunmukh, S/o. late Seshagiri Rao

Complainants 2 & 3 being minors rep. by their

mother and natural guardian Kavuri Aparna

i.e., 1^st complainant

All are residents of Door No.5-82-2, 4^th line,

Pandaripuram, Guntur – 522 002                              … Complainants

AND

1. Kavuri Sayi Babu, S/o. Veeraiah

2. Kavuri Devi Kumari, W/o. Sayi Babu

Both are residents of flat No.503, Rajani Grand Apartment, 

2^nd line, Rajendra Nagar, Guntur – 2.

3. The Branch Manager,

    LIC of India, No.699, Manibushan Complex,

    Lakshmipuram Main Road, Near Bata Show Room,

    Guntur – 522 007.

4. The Divisional Manager,

    LIC of India, Divisional Office,

    “Jeevan Prakash” Kennady Road,

    Post Box No.24, Machilipatnam – 521 001

    Krishna District.                                          … Opposite parties

              This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      10-05-11 in the presence of Sri Y.Sitaramaiah, advocate for complainants and of Sri A.S.R.K.Reddy, advocate for OPs 1&2, Sri K.Sarath Babu, advocate for OPs 3&4, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay an amount of Rs.3,16,000/- each, totaling an amount of Rs.9,48,000/- to the complainants 1 to 3 out of total said two policy maturity amounts and also Rs.10,000/- to each complainant towards compensation and mental agony and also an amount of Rs.5000/- towards costs and to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a. from due date till realization.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The 1^st complainant is the wife of late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao and complainants 2 and 3 are children of 1^st complainant and late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are parents of late Seshagiri Rao.  Late Seshagiri Rao died on 04-06-10 in a road accident at Bangalore city.  The said Seshagiri Rao worked as Senior Project Manager (SAP) in Mind Tree Limited Company and his last wage was about Rs.1,20,000/- p.m. While alive the said Seshagiri Rao obtained two policies namely one Jeevan Anand Policy and Jeevan Nidhi Policy from the opposite parties 3 and 4 and nominated his mother and father respectively under the said policies.  Under Jeevan Anand Policy the maturity amount is Rs.11,30,000/- and insured amount is Rs.5,00,000/-.  Under Jeevan Nidhi policy the maturity amount is Rs.4,50,000/- and insured amount is Rs.2,00,000/-.  When the said Seshagiri Rao died on 04-06-10 both the said policies are in force and LRs of said Seshagiri Rao are entitled for matured amount and insurance amount of the said two policies.  Even though, the names of father and mother were mentioned as nominees in the said policies, complainant 1 to 3 who are legal heirs being wife and children of Seshagiri Rao are also entitled to the said amount along with opposite parties 1 and 2 whose names were mentioned as nominees.  After the death of Sheshagiri Rao, opposite parties 1 and 2 are not cooperating with the complainants and put them in trouble without giving any financial trouble or moral support and necked them out.  As there was no other go the complainants took shulter at the parents of 1^st complainant.  In May 2010, while Seshagiri Rao alive 1^st complainant came to Guntur to her parent’s house for delivery.  Later Sheshagiri Rao died on 04-06-10 at Bangalore.  While the 1^st complainant was residing at Guntur opposite parties 1 and 2 went to Bangalore and break open the rented house without the knowledge of 1^st complainant and took away gold and silver articles, some cash, debited and credit cards, household articles, LIC bonds, FDs of different banks and educational certificates and passport kept in the said house.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 vacated the said rented house at Bangalore without the knowledge of 1^st complainant and did not give anything to the complainant.  On that 1^st complainant gave police report against opposite parties 1 and 2 at Bangalore.  The concerned police registered the case and arrested opposite parties 1 and 2 and they were released on bail.  The opposite parties also withdrew some amounts nearly Rs.3,50,000/- by using ATM Cards of late Seshagiri Rao without the knowledge of 1^st complainant.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not give singe pie to the complainants.  So there are strained relations between the complainants and opposite parties 1 and 2.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 made a plan to take away entire amount from opposite parties 3 and 4 out of the said two policies.  Even though the opposite parties 1 and 2 are nominees, they have to give the share amounts to the complainants also.  As such 1^st complainant got issued notice dt.01-07-10 to opposite parties 3 and 4 requesting them to release their amounts of share out of the total amounts under the said two policies and requested opposite parties 3 and 4 to distribute the said policy amounts among the complainants and opposite parties 1 and 2 and arrange the payment accordingly.  The opposite parties 3 and 4 received the said notice and got issued a reply dt.12-07-10 stating that they will settle the claims in favour of nominees i.e., opposite parties 1 and 2.   The request made by complainants to opposite parties to settle the issue for payment of their shares was invain.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 in not paying the amounts to the complainants towards their shares.  Hence, the complaint.

The 1^st opposite party filed its version and 2^nd opposite party adopted the same, which is in brief as follows:

                The material allegations in the complaint are false.  The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The relationship with this opposite party and 2^nd opposite party and the death of late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao in road accident on 04-06-10 at Bangalore are only correct and all other allegations are invented for the purpose this litigation.  It is correct that late Seshagiri Rao took two policies one Jeevan Anand Policy for Rs.5,00,000/- and Jeevan Nidhi Policy for Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite parties 3 and 4 and nominated this opposite party’s wife and himself to the above said two policies.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 gave birth to two children by name late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao and Kavuri Jaya Lakshmi, wife of Rama Seshagiri Rao.  All of them constitute as Hindu joint family.   The 1^st opposite party came to his in-laws house at Narukulapadu village as illatam son-in-law.  The 1^st opposite party inherited ancestors property from his father and utilized for the development of children.  Apart from it, 1^st opposite party worked in various companies in different stages and earned lakhs of rupees from 1986 onwards.  He also utilized said personal earnings to provide higher education to his son to study MCA and to get a job in prestigious corporate company like Mind Tree.  This opposite party’s financial assistance helped a lot to his son late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao to secure a job in a corporate company.  Late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao married 1^st complainant and gave birth to complainants 2 and 3.  The deceased late Kavuri Sheshagiri Rao paid premiums to policies mentioned in the complaint out of joint family income and as claim of policies are also joint family property.  The immovable and movable properties including the policies mentioned in complaint are to be divided among the coparceners i.e., opposite parties 1 and 2 and their daughter and deceased (complainants in this CC).  The calculation made by complainant is not correct.  The complainants are only entitled to 1/4^th share and rest of joint family members i.e., opposite parties 1 and 2 and their daughter are entitled to 3/4^th share. 

                The 1^st opposite party immediately after knowing about the death of his son went to Bangalore to bring the dead body in ambulance.  At that time, 1^st complainant is carrying 3^rd complainant in her womb and she is carrying 7^th month pregnancy and she is unable to travel to anywhere including to see her husband’s dead body at Bangalore.  The 1^st complainant’s father met with an accident at that time.  Nobody on the side of 1^st complainant attended to bring the dead body of late Seshagiri Rao.  The 1^st opposite party brought the dead body of his son after inquest and postmortem and completed death ceremonies personally. At the time of brining dead body 1^st opposite party vacated the rented house of his son at Bangalore and brought household articles by transport.  The 1^st complainant’s father who is greedy to take away all the joint family properties of this opposite party and his son, spoiled the mind of his daughter i.e., 1^st complainant and instigated to give a police report at Bangalore against opposite parties 1 and 2 and their daughter and son-in-law alleging that all of them committed theft and got it registered as a crime.  The 1^st opposite party and others involved in the said crime and taking steps quashing the crime as per law. 

                Late Seshagiri Rao son of opposite parties 1 and 2 took group insurance policy from Met Life Insurance Company and New India Assurance Company Ltd. for a sum assured Rs.25,00,000/-  and another policy from Birla Son Life Insurance Company for a sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- and nominated the 1^st complainant to the above two policies.   The 1^st complainant without mentioning the above two policies in her complaint, suppressed the said facts and approached the above two companies to draw the same behind the back of this opposite party and other family members.  The 1^st opposite party sent a registered notice on 19-10-10 to the above two insurance companies and others stating that not to settle the claims in favor of 1^st complainant without informing the same to her.  As per the reply dt.07-12-10 of M/s. Met life India Insurance Company Ltd., the 1^st complainant did her process to settle the said two claims in her favour alone without settling the shares of 1^st opposite party and other family members.  This is clear case of fraud on the part of complainants and they are attributing untenable allegations against this 1^st opposite party and others.  The 1^st complainant also obtained legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Guntur without mentioning the names of other family members like opposite parties 1 and 2 etc. to grab the flat at Rajendra Nagar and made an effort to mutate her name alone and in consequence to vacate opposite parties 1 and 2.  In fact 1^st opposite party is joint borrower of flat along with his son.  This opposite party and his wife at this old age will have no other house to take shelter. This Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the claim as complainants are neither customers nor deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4. All the joint family properties including LIC claims mentioned in complaint and other insurance polices have to be divided among all coparceners.  All the joint family properties have to be divided by the civil court as per provisions of Hindu Succession Act.  The complaint is not maintainable in view of non joinder of necessary and proper party Kavuri Jaya Lakshmi, Met Life Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Company Ltd., Birla Sun Life Insurance Company ltd.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The 4^th opposite party filed its version and it was adopted by 3^rd opposite party, which is in brief as follows:

                The material allegations mentioned in the complaint are all false and untenable.  It is true that while deceased Kavuri Seshagiri Rao was alive, he obtained two policies namely (1) Jeevan Anand Policy for the sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- and (2) Jeeven Nidhi Policy for the assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite parties 3 and 4 and put the names of his mother and father respectively as nominees and the policy holder died on 04-06-10 while the policies are in force.  Since opposite parties 1 and 2 are shown as nominees for the above said two policies respectively by the deceased Seshagiri Rao, opposite parties 3 and 4 will settle the repsecitve claim amounts to opposite parties 1 and 2 upon receipt of all the requirements from them.  This fact was clearly revealed to 1^st complainant through registered reply notice dt.12-07-10.  If the complainants and daughter of opposite parties 1 and 2 wants to claim any share over the death benefits of deceased Sheshagiri Rao, they have to approach civil court only for redressal of said relief but not this Forum.  No deficiency of service was caused by opposite parties 3 and 4 to complainants.  There is no previty of contract existing between complainants and opposite parties 3 and 4.  No claim forms and other requirements, such as police report etc. are submitted by complainants for considering the admissibility of their claim.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

                The 1^st complainant, opposite parties 1 and 4 have filed their respective affidavits in support of their contentions reiterating the same. 

                Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of complainants and Ex.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complaints are entitled to?

POINT No.1

                The case of complainants is that the husband of 1^st complainant and father of complainants 2 and 3 Kavuri Seshagiri Rao while working at Bangalore obtained two policies namely Jeevan Anand Policy and Jeevan Nidhi Policy from opposite parties 3 and 4 for the sum assured Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively and nominated opposite parties 2 and 1 his mother and father respectively to the above said policies and died in an accident at Bangalore on         04-06-10, that opposite parties 1 and 2 are trying to take away the amounts due under the above said two polices without giving the share to complainants 1 to 3 and when a notice was given to opposite parties 3 and 4, they gave reply to complainants under Ex.A4 stating that they will settle the claim in favour of nominees i.e., opposite parties 2 and 1 under section 39 of Insurance Act, 1938 upon receipt of requirements from the nominees. 

                The case of opposite parties 1 and 2 is that their son late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao paid the premiums to the policies out of joint family income and that the said policies are joint family property and as per Hindu Succession Act, the joint family properties which are movable and immovable including the policies mentioned in the complaint are to be divided among the coparceners i.e., opposite parties 1 and 2 and their daughter and deceased equally and the complainants are only entitled to 1/4^th share and rest of the joint family members are entitled to 3/4^th share in the two policies mentioned in the complaint and that their son also took group insurance policy from Met Life Insurance Company Ltd., and New India Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and also took another policy from Birla Son Life Insurance Company Ltd for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and nominated 1^st complainant to the above two policies and that the 1^st complainant has not mentioned about the said two policies in her complaint and suppressed the said fact and approached the above said companies to draw the same behind the back of this opposite parties 1 and 2, for her illegal gain and that when 1^st opposite party issued legal notice to above two insurance companies, Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. gave reply notice dt.07-12-10 under Ex.B3 stating that late Kavuri Sheshagiri Rao insured with their client under group policy through his employer M/s.Mind Tree Company ltd., that as per the policy taken by the deceased, the beneficiary was named as Smt. Aparna Yerramaneni, spouse (1^st complainant) and that their client was bound to pay the claim in favour of nominee so appointed and that accordingly payment has been issued in favour of spouse and nominee, which was handed over to employer M/s.Mind Tree Limited for disbursement.      

                  The case of opposite parties 3 and 4 is that opposite parties 1 and 2 are shown as nominees for the said policies of late Seshagiri Rao and that they will settle the respective claim amounts to opposite parties 1 and 2 upon receipt of all requirements from them and that they gave reply registered notice dt.12-07-10 to that effect to 1^st complainant and that if the complainants and daughter of opposite parties 1 and 2 wants to claim any share over the death benefits of late Seshagiri Rao, they have to approach the civil court for their redressal and there is no deficiency of service on their part since they have not received claim forms and other requirements such as police report etc. for considering the admissibility of complainants. 

                It is not in dispute that the deceased Seshagiri Rao took two policies i.e., (1) Jeevan Anand Policy for Rs.5,00,000/- and Jeeven Nidhi Policy for Rs.2,00,000/- and nominated his mother and father i.e., opposite parties 2 and 1 receptively for the said policies and while the policies are in force, the said Seshagiri Rao died on 04-06-10 at Bangalore in a road accident.  As seen from Ex.B4, the deceased Sheshagiri Rao obtained a policy from Birla Sun Life insurance Company Ltd. for a sum assured Rs.2,50,000/- and the 1^st complainant was shown as nominee.  As seen from Ex.B3 reply notice given by Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao insured with their client under group policy through his employer M/s.Mind Tree Company Ltd., that as per the policy, the name of 1^st complainant was shown as beneficiary to the said policy being spouse of late Seshagiri Rao and that their client was bound to pay the claim in favour of nominee so appointed and that accordingly payment has been issued in favour of the spouse and nominee i.e., 1^st complainant and it was handed over to the employer for disbursement.  Thus Ex.B3 and B4 reveals that there are two more policies in the name of late Seshagiri Rao and for those two policies, the 1^st complainant was nominated being spouse of the policy holder and the respective insurance companies are making payments to the nominee i.e., the 1^st complainant.  The said fact was not mentioned by the complainant in her complaint.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 in their version revealed about the said two policies and stated that the 1^st complainant approached the above companies in order to draw the same behind the back of opposite parties 1 and 2 and that it was also alleged by opposite parties 1 and 2 that the 1^st complainant obtained legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Guntur without mentioning the names of other family members like opposite parties 1 and 2 in order to grab one flat at Rajendra Nagar.  As already stated above, the complainant has not mentioned in her complaint about the remaining two policies mentioned in Ex.B3 and B4 and by suppressing the said fact came forward with this complaint claiming shares in the policies mentioned in the complaint.  The complainants 1 to 3 being wife and children of late Seshagiri Rao and 2^nd opposite party being the mother of late Seshagiri Rao are the class I heirs of late Seshagiri Rao and they are entitled to get their respective shares out of the four policies obtained by late Seshagiri Rao.  It was alleged by opposite parties 1 and 2 that their deceased son Seshagiri Rao took group insurance policy from Met Life Insurance Company Ltd. and New India Assurance Company Ltd. for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and another policy for Rs.5,00,000/- from Birla Sun Life insurance policy Ltd.  But as seen from Ex.B3, the amount of assured sum was not mentioned related to the group policy obtained through the employer from M/s.Mind Tree Company Ltd.  But a perusal of Ex.B4 shows, the sum assured is Rs.2,50,000/- for the policy obtained from Birla Sun Life Insurance by late Seshagiri Rao.  To the above said two policies mentioned in Ex.B3 and B4, the complainant was shown as nominee and the respective insurance companies are intending to disburse the said amounts to the nominee i.e., 1^st complainant herein.  The 1^st complainant as already stated above suppressed about the polices mentioned in Ex.B3 and B4 and came forward with this complaint in order to get shares in the assured amount of the policies to which opposite parties 1 and 2 are nominated.  According to Section 39 of Insurance Act, 1938, the nominee/nominees survive are entitled to receive money due under the policy only as a trustee for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased.  In a dispute between the nominee and legal heirs, the civil court can pass appropriate orders to do justice in the case.

                Therefore, as already stated above, the class I heirs of late Sheshagiri Rao are entitled to receive the benefits of the policies of the deceased insured.  The nominees are only entitled to receive the money only as a trustee for the benefit of legal heirs.  Since the complainant has not come forward with true facts relating to the policies mentioned in Ex.B3 and B4, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of case, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 since they intend to pay the benefits of policies in question to the nominees of the policies as per Section 39 of Insurance Act.  

                The counsel for complainant during the course of arguments relied on a decision report in III (1996) CPJ 19 (SC) between Shubhangi Shivjirao Ghatge and Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein the Apex Court held

                “Though the brother of the deceased had laid the claim, he is not a class I heir under Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 though mother is a class I heir.  Therefore, mother may claim a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law.  The deceased left behind him two children and his widow.  Therefore, they are entitled on 3/4^th share while the mother may claim 1/4^th share of the amount”

                   Even though it was alleged by the opposite parties 1 and 2 that late Seshagiri Rao paid the premiums to the above said policies out of the income of joint family properties, the same was not proved by them. One who alleges deficiency of service against the opposite parties is not expected to commit deficiency by himself.  In this case as already discussed, the complainant is not coming forward with other policies contended by the opposite parties.  This Forum cannot decide the question whether the deceased paid the premium for the policies in question from out of his own earnings or joint family funds. The same has to be gone into by a competent civil court.  Therefore, the decision relied on by the complainants as discussed above is distinguishable on facts. In view of the litigation among legal heirs of deceased insured, it can be said that opposite parties 3 and 4 did not commit any deficiency of service.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. This point in answered accordingly against the complainant.     

POINT No.2

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.     

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 18^th day of May, 2011.

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Parties 1 & 2:                                                               

                                                                                               Sd/-XXXX

                                                                                                PRESIDENT