Complaint filed on: 30-10-2010
Disposed on: 04-02-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2496/2010
DATED THIS THE 4th FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainants: -
1. Smt.Shobha S.Gadia
W/o. late Sudarshan Gadia,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.16, 2nd Cross,
Shankarpuram,
Bangalore – 4
2. Smt.Payal Mitesh Khariwal,
W/o. Mitesh Khariwal,
D/o. late Sudarshan Gadia,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.248, 3rd Main Road, Chamrajpet, Bangalore-18
3. Ms.Priyanka S.Gadia,
D/o. Late Sudarshan Gadia,
Aged about 19 years,
Residing at No.16, 2nd Cross,
Shankarpuram,
Bangalore – 4
4. Master Yash S.Gadia,
S/o. Late Sudarshan Gadia,
Aged about 12 years,
Residing at No.16, 2nd Cross,
Shankarpuram,
Bangalore – 4
[The complainant No.4 is minor and represented by his natural guardian mother 1st complainant]
V/s
Opposite party: -
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
A corporation having its one of its
branches,
Jayanagar Branch,
Jeevan Soudha,
II Floor, I Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078,
Represented by its branch
Manager,
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainants against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP) are, that Sudarshan Gadia the husband of the first complainant and father of complainants No.2 to 4 had obtained an insurance policy from OP. That the insured had died on 18-12-2003 leaving behind them. That when the OP failed to pay the insurance amount to them. They filed a complaint in CC.No.158/2009 before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, the same came to be allowed by the order dated 31-3-2009 directing OP to pay the insurance amount with all consequential benefits as per the rules and regulations of the policy. Then they filed an execution petition in EP No.81/2009 against the OP, when the OP did not comply the order dated 31-3-2009. Then the OP paid the amount of Rs.9,95,500/- but alleged that he has not paid the accrued interest on Rs.9,95,000/- from April 2004 for which they are entitle. The complainants therefore alleging that the OP has not paid accrued interest of Rs.7,27,920/-, despite issue of legal notice dated 27-01-2010 has prayed for a direction to the OP to pay interest of Rs.7,27,920/- from April 2004 till 14-9-2009 and to award damages of Rs.50,000/-.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting issue of policy in favour of the husband of the first complainant and also filing of complaint by the complainants in CC. No.158/2009 and also the order passed by the 2nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on that complaint. The OP has also admitted filing of execution petition by the complainants and payment of the insurance amount with all consequential benefits, and stated that the complainants have filed this complaint praying for interest at 14% per annum on the amount paid to them. It is further stated that the complaint is barred by the principles of resjudicata and the complaint is therefore is to be dismissed. The OP further narrating the grounds on which, they had not paid the policy amount by further contending to have not caused any deficiency in their service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the first complainant and the Manager (legal) of OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of the policy conditions, copy of the complaint in complaint no.158/2009, copy of legal notice they got issued on 27-1-2010 to the OP and copy of reply of the OP. The complainant alongwith affidavit evidence has produced a copy of the order passed on the earlier complaint. OP has produced a copy of the order sheet of the forum proceedings in the earlier complaint and copy of the policy. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainants prove that this complaint is maintainable and it is not barred by the principles of resjudicata?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Points No.1: As all the material facts like husband of the first complainant availing an insurance policy his death, complainants filing an earlier complaint in CC.158/2009 the order passed on it and recovery of the amount as per the order passed in the previous complaint are not at all in dispute, we shall directly go to the claim of the complainants to know whether the complaint is maintainable and the complainants are entitled for the relief of interest from the OP on the amount of Rs.9,95,500/-.
7. The complainants in the earlier complaint No.158/2009 filed against the same OP had prayed for a direction to the OP to pay the insurance amount due under insurance policy obtained by the husband of the complainant without insisting upon production of succession certificate with interest at 18% per annum from the date of death of the insured. But the forum when passed its order dated 31-3-2009 granted a relief by holding that the production of succession certificate is not necessary and directed OP to pay the claim amount alongwith all consequential benefits as per the rules and regulations of the policy condition to the OP within 30 days from the date of the order. The forum in its order has not granted the prayer sought by the complainants awarding interest on the policy amount from the date of death of the insured. That means to say the complainants were denied interest on the amount due from the date of death of the insured. The OP thereafter in execution petition filed by the complainants admittedly paid Rs.9,95,500/- to the complainants and with that the execution petition proceedings came to be closed.
8. It is further found that the OP after calculating all that benefits that accrued on the insured amount have paid Rs.9,95,500/-. It is not the case of the complainants that under terms and conditions of the policy, OP is liable to pay interest in addition to the bonus or other benefits, even if that is not the case of the complainants also. The complainants claim is that OP ought to have paid insurance amount as on the date of death of the insured, as they did not pay, therefore from that date onwards, they ought to have paid interest at 14% per annum. Right if the OP had withheld the insurance amount illegally or arbitrarily on such omission of the OP, the forum or any court could award interest. In the earlier complaint filed by the complainants the complainants though claimed interest but the forum has not granted it. If the complainants had aggrieved of the order of not granting interest then they could have preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble State Commission, but they have not chosen to file any appeal. On the contrary are satisfied with order passed in the earlier complaint. Even if OP had not paid any balance amount as per the order passed in the earlier complaint in the execution petition proceedings, they could have submitted in the execution petition about any balance amount not paid or outstanding and continued with the execution petition. That is also not done, but they have came up with this fresh complaint for the relief, which is declined by the forum in the earlier proceeding. The complaint therefore is not maintainable, as the issue relating to the payment due under insurance policy held by the insured, since has been dealt with by the forum in the earlier complaint. The present complaint is barred by principles of resjudicata. The complainants thus are not entitled for the relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer points No.1 in the Negative and pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 4th February 2011.
Member Member President
