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
Monday the 19th day of June, 2006
C.C. No.21/2006
Smt. C.Kalavathi,
W/o Late C.Nagamunaiah,
Aged 34 years, Hindu,
D.No.9/1066, Near A.T.R., Gooty (RS),
Anantapur District,
Now presently residing at
Kothakota (V),
Dhone (M), Kurnool District. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Kadapa.
2. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Tadipatri Branch,
Anantapur District.
3. The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kurnool Branch,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A.S.Ummer Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 to 3, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 24-11-2003 to 9-1-2006, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the wife and nominee of Late C.Nagamunaiah, who insured his life with opposite parties under policy bearing No.652938194 for Rs.50,000/-. On 24-11-2003 at about 12.30 mid night the policy holder died due to vomitings and the complainant intimated to opposite party No.2 on 12-3-2004 along with insurance policy, last premium receipt and death certificate, seeking for claim forms but the opposite party failed to send any claim forms and on 10-12-2005 the complainant received a letter from opposite parties requesting the policy holder (deceased) to pay arrears of premium due for the period March 2004 to September 2005. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are under obligation to settle the dispute but did not care to pay the assured amount to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents viz. (1) Letter dated 12-3-2004 of complainant address to opposite party No.2 requesting to sent claim form and to pay assured amount (2) Death certificate of policy holder (3) Letter dated 10-12-2005 of opposite party No.1 addressed to the deceased policy holder (4) First premium receipt dated 20-9-2002 issued in favour of policy holder and (5) Renewal premium receipt dated 6-9-2003 issued to the policy holder, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in the case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased C.Nagamunaiah insured his life with opposite party No.2 under policy No. 652938194 for assured amount of Rs.50,000/- and nominated the complainant as his nominee. But denies that the complainant husband died on 24-11-2003. The opposite parties submits that the complainant has given an intimation on 12-3-2004 to opposite parties along with insurance policy and last premium receipt and death certificate. But it further submits that the complainant on 26-6-2004 has sent a letter along with original premium receipt dated 20-11-2003 stating that her husband died on 16-11-2003 and she had paid the due premium of Rs.1,726+Rs.25.90ps for September 2003 through one Vadde Ramesh by mistake and claimed refund of said amount. As per the letter dated 26-6-2004 the policy holder died on 16-11-2003 and the last premium was paid on 20-11-2003 (i.e. after the death of the policy holder). Hence, on the date of death of policy holder the policy was in lapsed condition and nothing is payable to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Knowing all these facts the complainant concocted the intimation letter dated 12-3-2004 addressed to the opposite parties and filed this frivolous and baseless complaint and the question of payment of claimed compensation and costs does not arise and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz (1) Renewal premium receipt dated 20-11-2003 issued to policy holder (2) Letter dated 26-6-2004 of complainant addressed to opposite parties and (3) Policy bond bearing No. 652938194 issued to the policy holder, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties :?
8. The complainant’s case is that she is the nominee of the deceased C.Nagamunaiah who insured his life with opposite parties for Rs.50,000/- vide Ex.B3, the Ex.B3 is a policy bond issued by opposite parties to the complainant’s husband and the said policy covers death before date of maturity with sum assured and vested bonus. The policy holder of died on 24-11-2004 due to motions and intimation was given to opposite parties vide Ex.A1, the Ex.A1 is the letter of the complainant dated 12-3-2004 addressed to opposite party No.2 stating that her husband died on 24-11-2004 and requests to send claim forms. But the opposite parties after received said letter did neither sent the claim forms nor paid the assured amount. But sent a letter dated 10-12-2005 vide Ex.A3 for payment of premium amount for a period from 3/04 to 9/05, the period after the death of the policy holder. The said letter in Ex.A3 is absurd as covers post death period but as against to it the opposite parties alleges in their written version that the policy holder died on 16-11-2003 and not on 24-11-2003 and the last premium was paid on 20-11-2003 i.e. subsequent to the demise of the policy holder. In substantiating the above allegations the opposite parties filed and relied on Ex.B2, the Ex.B2 is a letter dated 26-6-2004 of complainant addressed to opposite parties, wherein she stated that her husband died on 16-11-2003 and the last premium was paid by her on 20-11-2003 by mistake and seeks for return of last premium amount, but the said exhibit was denied by the complainant as not signed by her, in her sworn affidavit averments and in the replies to the interrogatories caused by opposite party. In the absence of any supporting material to substantiate the contents of Ex.B2 it cannot be said that opposite parties has proved the said Ex.B2, as the said Ex.B2 was strongly denied by the complainant as not signed by her. Hence, relying on the Ex.B2 the opposite parties cannot reject the valid claim of the complainant. The Ex.A4, A5 and Ex.B1 are the premium receipts dated 20-9-2002, 6-9-2003 and 20-1-2003 respectively issued by opposite parties to the deceased policy holder for Rs.1,726, 1803.70ps and 1751.90ps.
9. It is clear from the above that the opposite parties miserably failed to prove their case by placing any supporting material in support of their allegations. Mere filing of Ex.B2 does not mean that the contents thereof are necessarily true, mere assertion or oral testimony as to the wrong date of death given by the complainant in Ex.A1 neither inspire any confidence nor can be acted upon and relied upon. Hence, the contents of Ex.B2 cannot be looked into nor it can inspire any confidence to act upon. The Ex.A2 is the death certificate of the deceased C.Nagamunaiah which clearly shows in column date of death as dates to 24-11-2003. Hence, it is needless to observe that the burden is on the opposite parties to establish that the complainant has given wrong date of death of the policy holder of C.Nagamunaiah in the Ex.A1 (intimation letter) and the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to discharge this burden.
10. There is no dispute that the written version and sworn affidavit on behalf of opposite parties are filed by one P.Rajanna and the complainant caused interrogatories for the replies of said P.Rajanna, but the replies to the interrogatories are answered by one A.Uday Sankar, hence, no credence can be given to the said replies as they are invalid one.
11. Having regard to over all consideration there is no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have miserably failed to substantiate the contents of Ex.B2. Therefore, in the said circumstances non payment of assured amount by the opposite parties to the complainant is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and amounts to deficiency of service on their part.
12. In the light of above discussion and the material on record not substantiating the allegations of opposite party and further there appears any substance in the allegations made by the opposite parties and the complainant is remaining entitled to the assured amount.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with 12% interest from the date of intimation i.e. 12-3-2004 and benefits, along with Rs.2,000/- as costs of the case within a month of receipt of this order. In default, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the supra award amount with 18% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 19th day of June, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Letter dated 12-3-2004 of complainant address to opposite party No.2
requesting to sent claim form and to pay assured amount
Ex.A2 Death certificate of policy holder
Ex.A3 Letter dated 10-12-2005 of opposite party No.1 addressed to the
deceased policy holder
Ex.A4 First premium receipt dated 20-9-2002 issued in favour of policy holder Ex.A5 Renewal premium receipt dated 6-9-2003 issued to the policy holder
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Renewal premium receipt dated 20-11-2003 issued to policy holder
Ex.B2 Letter dated 26-6-2004 of complainant addressed to opposite parties
Ex.B3 Policy bond bearing No. 652938194 issued to the policy holder
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1.Sri. A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2.Sri. A.S.Ummer Javid Ali, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
