BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th of January 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.165/2010
(Admitted on 29.05.2010)
Smt.Vasanthi Y. Kotian,
Wo. Sri.Yadava Kotian,
Aged about 61 years,
RA. Near Chithrapu School,
Chithrapu, Mulki,
Mangalore Taluk 574 154. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.S.K. Ullal).
VERSUS
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Mulki Branch Office,
Shri Narayana Guru Sabha Graha,
Main Road, Mulki,
Mangalore Taluk 574 154,
Represented by its Manager. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.Anantha Kirshna Udupa).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, her son Sri.Premanand had insured his life under policy No.623438269 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with double accident benefit. The Complainant is the nominee under the above said policy. The insured Premanand had died accidentally due to police firing at Mulki on 01.12.2006 of Dakshina Kannada District. It is stated that, under the terms of the said policy, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the double accident benefit but the Opposite Party had paid a sum of Rs.48,334/- but not paid the double accident benefit. It is stated that, the Complainant is entitled for not only Rs.48,334/- but it is more than Rs.1,00,000/-.
It is submitted that, the son of the Complainant had died accidentally due to the police firing. On the date of alleged police firing at Mulki, there were more than 500 persons and insured Mr.Premanand was not a member of the said mob. He was a passerby at the time of the incident and unfortunately he was illegally killed by the police by firing at him and contended that the death of the insured is on account of the accident and he was not involved in any mob as alleged in the police document and contended that the repudiation of the claim by the Opposite Party is not justifiable which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the double accident benefit along with interest at 18% p.a. from 01.12.2006 to 05.04.2010 and also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version admitted the policy and stated that, the sum assured was Rs.50,000/- along with double accident benefit. The death of the life assured was due to police firing since the life assured had engaged in civil riots, obstructing the police officials from performing their duty which amounts to breach of law. It is stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the policy the Opposite Party has already settled the death claim to the extent of Rs.48,334/- and rejected the accident benefit as the life assured death is not proved to be accidental. And further stated that, as per the FIR, PIR and charge sheet the life assured is a No.1 accused and engaged in civil riots, obstructing the police officials from performing their duty which amounts to breach of law and life assured died when the police opened fire and hence she is not entitled any claim.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Smt.Vasanthi Y. Kotian (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Shripathi Upadhya (RW1), Manager (L & HPF Department) of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R4 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. Both parties produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute is that, the deceased Premanand was the holder of policy bearing No.623438269, wherein the sum assured was Rs.50,000/- along with double accident benefit. It is also admitted that, the life insured Premanand died in the police firing at Mulki on 01.12.2006 of Dakshina Kannada District. The Complainant received Rs.48,334/- as the death claim but did not receive the double accident benefit under the policy.
Now the grievances of the Complainant is that, according to the Complainant her son Sri.Premanand had died accidentally due to the firing at Mulki and he is not involved in any rioting or committed any breach of law. Hence, she is entitled double accident benefit under the policy.
On the other hand, the Opposite Party contended that, the death of the life assured was due to police firing since the life assured had engaged in civil riots, obstructing the police officials from performing their duty which amounts to breach of law and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, he is not entitled the double accident benefit and produced documents.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C5. Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R4.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record, we find that, admittedly under the policy bearing No.623438269 the deceased Premanand was insured his life for a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with double accident benefit. It is admitted by the Complainant in her letter dated 21.02.2007 i.e., Ex R4 written to the Opposite Party and also in her pleading as well as sworn affidavit stated that, the Premanand died in police firing that took place on 01.12.2006 at Mulki of Dakshina Kannada District. That means, the death of the life assured admittedly took place on 01.12.2006 at Mulki in police firing. The Opposite Party on the other hand produced FIR and Charge sheet i.e., Ex R1 and R2, wherein, the deceased Premanand is shown as Accused No.1 and the charge sheet produced by the Opposite Party shows that Accused No.1 i.e., deceased Premanand assaulted police officers and therefore he was fired/shooted by the officials and resulted in his death in the civil riot that took place on the above said day i.e., on 01.12.2006 at Mulki. The Complainant admitted the death of the Premanand due to police firing but contended that, her son was illegally killed by the police by firing and he was not involved in any mob as alleged in the police document but failed to produce any material evidence before this FORA to contradict the police document produced by the Opposite Party. In the absence of the same, we hold that, the public documents i.e., the FIR and the charge sheet show that the life assured is died in the police firing that took place at Mulki and the deceased Premanand is one of the accused in the riot took place on 1.12.2006. Hence, we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the double accident benefit in the instant case is justifiable and we do not find any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of January 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt.Vasanthi Y. Kotian – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – : FIR (Xerox copy)
Ex C2 – 12.03.2007: Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex C3 – 18.11.2008: Copy of the legal notice.
Ex C4 – 03.12.2008: Copy of the letter issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant’s advocate..
Ex C5 – 09.02.2009: Xerox copy of repudiation letter issued by the Opposite Party.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.Shripathi Upadhya, Manager (L & HPF Department) of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 01.12.2006: Notarized copy of the charge sheet.
Ex R2 - : Notarized copy of the FIR.
Ex R3 – 24.12.2005: Original Bima Gold policy bearing No.623438269.
Ex R4 – 21.02.2007: Letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Dated:14.01.2011 PRESIDENT
