Date of Filing:16.01.2009<br /> Date of Order:31.03.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 158 OF 2009<br /> <br /> 1. Smt. Shobha S. Gadia,<br /> W/o Late Sudarshan Gadia,<br /> R/at No. 16, II Cross, Shankarpuram,<br /> Bangalore 560 002.<br /> <br /> 2. Smt. Payal Mitesh Khariwal,<br /> W/o Mitesh Khariwal,<br /> D/o Late Sudarshan Gadia,<br /> R/at No. 248, III Main Road,<br /> Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18.<br /> <br /> 3. Ms. Priyanka S. Gadia,<br /> D/o Late Sudarshan Gadia,<br /> R/at No. 16, II Cross, Shankarpuram,<br /> Bangalore 560 002.<br /> <br /> 4. Master. Yash G. Gadia,<br /> S/o Late Sudarshan Gadia,<br /> R/at No. 16, II Cross, Shankarpuram,<br /> Bangalore 560 002.<br /> <br /> (The complainant No.4 is Minor and <br /> represented by his natural guardian <br /> mother 1st complainant) Complainants<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India,<br /> A corporation having its one of its branches,<br /> Jayanagar Branch, Jeevan Soudha,<br /> II Floor, I Phase, J.P. Nagar, <br /> Bangalore-560078 represented by<br /> its Branch Manager. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a wife of deceased Sudarshan and complainant No.2 and 3 are the daughters and complainant No.4 is the son of deceased Sudarshan constituted under Hindu Undivided Family. On 18/12/2003 Sudarshan passed away at Bangalore. The complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Sudarshan. Late Sudarshan Gadia during life time had obtained insurance policy No.610762923. After the death of Sudarshan complainants being surviving legal heirs are jointly entitled to the benefit of the policy. In the month of March and April-2004 complainants submitted the original policy requesting the opposite party to make payment. On 01/10/2008 the opposite party gave a letter stating that complainants are required to obtain succession certificate from the competent authority or Court to get the benefit of the policy. It is the case of the complainant that, production of succession certificate is not necessary as there is no dispute in respect of legal heirs. The complainants are the members of HUF. There is no dispute or rival claim. Under this consideration the action of the opposite party insisting for the succession certificate amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the complainants prayed that opposite party be directed to pay the policy amount to the complainants along with interest and the complainants also prayed Rs.50,000/- as compensation. <br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through Advocate and defence version filed. Almost all the facts are admitted in the defense version. Opposite party submitted that claim is not repudiated, on the other hand requested the complainant to furnish necessary particulars. It is submitted that net amount payable under the policy is Rs.9,95,500/- which becomes payable to the kartha. Amount will be settled to the kartha. Opposite party has to act as per rules and regulations. When the complainants failed to comply the requirements opposite party requested to produce succession certificate to avoid unnecessary future dispute. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. Perused the documents.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether the production of succession certificate is necessary for getting insurance policy amount? <br /> <br /> 2. Whether then opposite party can be directed to allow the claim of the complainant and to pay the policy benefit?<br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The opposite party had given letter on 01/10/2008 to the first complainant Shobha. The letter reads as under:-<br /> To<br /> Smt. Shobha Sudarshan Gadia,<br /> No. 10, S.S. Temple,<br /> V.V. Puram, Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Madam,<br /> <br /> Reg: Claim on policy No.610762923<br /> <br /> We are glad to inform you that the competent authority has admitted the above claim subject to production of succession certificate. Please submit the succession certificate from Court of authority so that we may proceed with the consideration of the claim.<br /> <br /> Thanking you,<br /> <br /> Yours faithfully,<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Branch Manager<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. So as per this letter it is clear that there is no dispute whatsoever in respect of admitting the claim and paying the amount as per the rules and regulations of the policy. The only requirement or document sought by the opposite party is production of succession certificate. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued that there is no dispute whatsoever in respect of who are the heirs and legal representative of the policy holder and he further submitted that no rival claims have been put up by anybody even though policy holder had died in 2003. When there is no dispute as to who are heirs and legal representative of policy holder production of succession certificate is not necessary. The opposite party could have admitted claim and paid the amount as per rules, but the opposite party is insisted for production of succession certificate. This requirement is absolutely unnecessary and it does not require production of succession certificate by legal representatives. Admittedly, first complainant Shobha is the wife of the policy holder and complainant No.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his argument that the corporation cannot insist on production of succession certificate has submitted an authority of Mumbai High Court reported in AIR 1990 Bombay page 225 in Armugam Chelliah Paul (since deceased by LRs.) and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein it has been held as under:-<br /> “Insurance Act (4 of 1938), S.39(5) – No dispute as to who are heirs and legal representatives of policy – holder – Corporation cannot insist on production of succession certificate.<br /> <br /> <br /> Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.214.<br /> Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.22, R.3<br /> <br /> Insurance Policy – No dispute as to who are heirs and legal representatives of policy – holder – Production of succession certificate not necessary.<br /> <br /> Even if, in the policy, the category of persons to whom the amount should be paid has been restricted, it is not open to the Insurance Corporation to say that they would only pay the persons as are mentioned in the policy and not to anybody else mentioned under the statute. In such a situation, the statute prevails over the contract. It is true that the object of S.39(5) is to see that the Corporation gets a proper discharge. The statute has taken care of all the categories of persons who are entitled to claim this amount. It does not mean that even though there is no dispute as to who are the heirs and legal representatives, they must still obtain a succession certificate to get a proper discharge as far as the Corporation is concerned. It is only where there is a dispute amongst the heirs and legal representatives, the Corporation would be justified in insisting on their, on any of them, getting a suitable representation, and pay the amount to such a person. The claim is a statutory liability arising under the Act and if there is no dispute as to the heirs and legal representatives of the policy – holder it is difficult to understand as to how the Corporation can insist that the party must necessarily obtain a succession certificate”. <br /> <br /> 7. So in view of the above authority, it is clear that in this case, the opposite party corporation cannot insist for production of succession certificate by the complainants. The complainants No.1 to 4 constituted the members of HUF and first complainant Smt. Shobha being the widow of the deceased in the kartha of the family. Therefore, as per the policy conditions there is absolutely no any legal bar to pay the claim amount to the complainants. The opposite party can very well get a proper discharge on payment of policy amount and consequential benefits to the present complainant. The learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that the amount payable under the policy is Rs.9,95,500/- and the opposite party shall pay the benefit under the policy to the complainants as per the rules and regulations. The opposite party has to pay the interest also if the amount mentioned as Rs.9,95,500/- payable does not include interest. The opposite party has to pay the policy amount and consequential benefits to the complainants up to the date of payment. On making payment to the complainants the opposite party gets proper discharge. With the above discussion, I have told that production of succession certificate by the complainants for getting claim amount is not necessary and consequentially the opposite party shall be directed to pay the policy amount along with consequential benefits to the complainants. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The Complaint is allowed. It is declared that production of succession certificate for getting the claim amount under policy No.610762923 is not necessary.<br /> 9. The opposite party is directed to pay the claim amount along with all the consequential benefits as per the rules and regulations and policy conditions to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 10. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 11. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF MARCH-2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br />