BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 6th day of January, 2006.
C.D.No.28/2005
Ch.V.Ravanamma, W/o Late M.Ramana Rao, Aged 32 years, Hindu,
R/o Flat No.17, Near I.T.C. backside, Krishna Nagar,Kurnool District.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Cuddapah.
2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Nandyal, Kurnool District.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 5.1.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A.S.U.Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite parties for payment of Rs.6,57,064/- as balance of assured sum under two policies, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, an amount of Rs.42,878/- as interest at 24% per annum on 1,42,936/- for delayed payments, interest at 24% per annum from the date of demise of the policy holder and costs of the complainant alleging deficiency of service of the opposite parties in not paying the assured amount of Rs.4 lakhs of the two policies of the deceased policy holder and delay in making part payment of Rs.1,42,936/- only on 31-3-2004 while the death of policy holder dates to 23-12-2002.
2. The opposite parties, who made their appearance in pursuance of the receipt of the notices issued by this Forum as to this case of the complainant, contested the case filing the written version of the opposite party No.1 and its adoption by opposite party No.2 and denying any of their liability.
3. The written version of the opposite parties even though admit the deceased policy holder (husband of the complainant) as policy holder of the policies mentioned in the complaint for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with benefits under each policy and the complainant as nominee of said deceased policy holder allege the claim for due amounts under said policies were early claim as the death of the policy holder occurred within the 25 days of taking policy and the said death due to drowning was a suspicious as suicide and the complainant submitted a disclaim in the form of notarized stamped declaration on 2-4-2004 giving up her rights and the settlement of said claim on exgratia basis in favour of the complainant for Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy in full quit and the complainant receiving the same in full quit under discharge receipt and hence the complainant’s case as not maintainable seeks its dismissal with costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.X1 and X2 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its case, the opposite party side has taken reliance on the documentary record in Ex.B1 to B3 apart from the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its defense.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is, whether any deficiency of the opposite parties is made out by the complainant exposing the liability of the opposite parties to the complainant’s claim.
6. The complainant wife and nominee of the deceased policy holder alleges the demise of her husband was accidental drowning as slipped into well while talking with another person sitting on the para feet wall of said wall on account of his loosing balance of control. As said death of policy holder occurred within the 25 days after taking said policies, the opposite party alleged the claim by the complainant as an early claim, was investigated into and it was felt that suicide was committed by policy holder in depression of mind consequent to demise of policy holder daughter. The opposite parties did not place any cogent material that the death of the policy holder was a suicide committed during depression of mind. While such is so with the opposite parties, the material in Ex.A1 and A2 (FIR and inquest in crime 109/02 of P.S Mahanandi) says the policy holder fallen into the well loosing balance of control and no where it says of any material which may suggest the depression of mind of the policy holder and his falling into the well as one to commit suicide. Therefore the said death of the policy holder remains as one that occurred due to accidental drowning and not due to suicidal drowning. Hence there will be no justifiability for the opposite parties to hold the death of the policy holder as suicidal and there by the non entitleness of the complainant for the bonofidies of said policies of deceased.
7. Another stand taken by the opposite parties are that the complainant has submitted relinquishment of claim by executing a disclaimer on 2-4-2004 on a notarized declaration on stamp paper vide Ex.B3. While the complainant disowns any such execution by her with the knowledge there off, the said document in Ex.B3 was not proved by the opposite parties by examining the said notary, who must have notarized said declaration. While the matters stood thus, the notarary register in Ex.X1 and its corresponding receipt book of said notary does not show any such transaction on 2-4-2004 as there are no transaction in said Ex.X1 and X2 after 25-3-2004 and prior to 5-4-2004 non the less on the date of 2-4-2004. Further if the Ex.B3 is of any worth and bonofide, the opposite parties would have taken the opportunity of brining it to light in the Ex.A7 in responding to the notice of complainant in Ex.A5. Hence in the said circumstances the said Ex.B3 in the absence of its proof as genuine and bonofide one in discredit of the complainant denial of the same it, remains as a got up and fabricated document by the opposite parties with an ulterior motive and so it bears any weight for its consideration.
8. When the death of the policy holder is not in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and when there is no cogent material to believe it as suspicious one to have a unlawful gain by any deceitful means, the insurer has no other go except to honour the terms and conditions of said policy in making its due payments to the claimer. Hence the so called exgratia consideration for payment of discretionary amount of Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy is remaining wholly unjustifiable.
9. When the bonofidies of Ex.B3 as to disclaimer not proved to hold its bindingness on complainant and the wording of Ex.A7 does not whisper anything that of Ex.B3 and the Ex.B3 or any other as consideration for any exgratia payment, as the Ex.A7 remains not well founded and there being neither any voluntarieness of complainant in said so called disclaimer in Ex.B3 nor there being any justification for payment of said paltry amount of Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy to the complainant, the decision of Hon’ble Utter Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow in Sambunath Balmukund V/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., reported in III (2004) CPJ page 409 is having no relevancy and applicability to this case for want of any similarity in facts with this case.
10. As there appears any justifiabilities in the conduct of the opposite parties in awarding a paltry amount under the style of exgratia consideration not being supported with any cogent rule position or terms and conditions of the policy, instead of paying the amount due under said policy covering the said contingency, and there being any cogent material on opposite party side to believe that the insurer has acted in good faith and not arbitrarily but in due appreciation of material and in due application of mind in ordering the said paltry amount as exgratia, the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal rendered in Shahnaz Begum V/s Branch Manager, L.I.C of India and other reported in I ( 1995-1) Consumer Protection Reporter page 76 has no relevant application to the present case of the complainant on account of its non similarity of circumstances with the said case.
11. From the circumstances alleged by the complainant in complaint as to receipt of said paltry amounts under impression caused there under to that effect that the balance amounts will be paid in due course and her signature in token off said paltry amount under four cheques being with the said understanding and fraudulent circumstances alleged in her sworn affidavit, the decision of Hon’ble A.P.State Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission, Hyderabad rendered in L.I.C of India V/s Shaik Rasool Be reported in III (1995-(1)) Consumer Protection Reporter page 588 is leaving any bearing on this case for want of similarity of the circumstances in between these two cases.
12. In the absence of any cogent circumstances establishing the bonofide execution of Ex.B3 by the complainant and on the other it appears to be a highly suspicious one in the light of the observations made earlier in reference to Ex.X1 and X2 the said Ex.B3 which is bearing the signature of the complainant ut the most amounts to a mere execution of said document and any acceptance of insurance claim would not stop the insured or the person claiming there under from making further claim from the insurer as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance V/s Ajmeersing Cotton and General Mills and another reported in 1999 (6) Supreme Court cases page 400.
13. Therefore in sum up of the above discussions the opposite parties are not remaining discharged of its liability of payment of due amounts under said policies of the deceased policy holder to the complainant on their mere making payments of said Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy and there by the deficient conduct of service of the opposite parties is being made out towards the complainant in not properly settling the claim preferred under said two policies of the deceased policy holder.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the supara stated decision held the granting of 18% interest by National Commission is not justifiable in the absence of pleading or evidence regarding fraud, misrepresentation etc., in said late payment. But here in our present case as the complainant pleads misrepresentation and fraud played on her at the time of making payment of said paltry amount of Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy, as balance amount will be paid in due course, the granting of interest at 18% per annum on the amounts due to the complainant does not appear to be a exorbitant one.
15. Hence, in sum up of the above discussion, as the amounts paid at Rs.1,07,200/- under each policy of deceased policy holder to the complainant being not remaining justifiable, the complainant is remaining eligible for the claim made towards the balance amount due under said policies to the deceased policy holder with interest of 18% per annum till realization and costs of Rs.10,000/- as the complainant was driven by the opposite parties by their conduct to the Forum for having remedy.
16. Consequently the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severely to pay the above said award amount to the complainant with in a month of receipt of this order in default the opposite party shall pay the award amount to the complainant with interest of 18% per annum from the said date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Transcribed by him corrected and pronounced in the open court this the 6th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 First Information Report
Ex.A2 Inquest Report
Ex.A3 Post Mortem Certificate
Ex.A4 C.C. of Death Certificate
Ex.A5 Legal notice, DT.4-2-2005 addressed by complainant counsel to opposite
parties No.1 and 2.
Ex.A6 Acknowledgement (Two along with receipts)
Ex.A7 Reply notice, Dt.12-2-2005.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Original copy of policy bond bearing No.651594344
Ex.B2 Original copy of policy bond bearing No.651594345
Ex.B3 Original disclaimer/relinquishment letter, Dt.2-4-2004 submitted by the
complainant duly notarized.
Exhibits Marked by the Forum:
Ex.X1 Notary Register.
Ex.X2 Corresponding Receipt Book (Page Nos.801 to 900).
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:
1.Sri. A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2.Sri. A.S.U.Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
