BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,
President(FAC)/Senior Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
Wednesday, the 15th day of September 2010
C.C. No. 17 of 2010
Between:
Syed Noor Ahmed S/o Syed Mehboob,
aged 65 years, Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o 11-4-615/A, Mythri Apartments,
Bazarghat, A.C. Guards Road, Hyderabad.
….Complainant
And
1. The Manager, United India Insurance
Co., Ltd., near Bus stand, Sangareddy,
Medak district.
2. Regional Manager, United India Insurance
Co., Ltd., Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad.
….Opposite parties
This complaint coming up for final hearing before us on 13-09-2010 in the presence of Complainant-in-person and Sri B.Janardhan Rao, Advocate for the Opposite parties, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, President(FAC)/Senior Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.6,00,000/- and settle the death of the life assured and to pay the same to complainant and interest from 18.08.2000 till realization of amount @ 36% p.a. over the above said policy, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and for defective services and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
1. The Complainant alleging that his wife Smt.Arifunissa Begum working as Government Teacher at Government Girls High School, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar district took personal accident policy with the opposite parties bearing policy No.051403/42/01/11/002026/2000 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- paying the premium of Rs.270/- which was valid during the period 10-07-2000 to 09-07-2001 wherein the name of complainant is shown as nominee.
It is further alleged that his wife unfortunately met with an accident on 6-8-2000 and she was admitted in Government Hospital and to that extent, the Police Jinnaram registered a case in Cr.No.83/ 2000 under section 337 IPC and later altered the section of law to 304-A IPC on the death of the deceased. Complainant being nominee informed the death of life assured through a letter dated 18-8-2000 and sent it through registered parcel bearing No.5814 on 21-8-2000 which the OP No.1 acknowledged on 22-8-2000 with a request to settle the claim without any delay. That the complainant was put to numerous hardships by the Ops 1 and 2 when he approached them for payment of policy money and adopted dilatory tactics with intention to avoid payment. Several phone calls made by him to Ops 1 and 2 proved futile. Instead of making payment, the OP No.1 went to the Police Jinnaram and made malicious statement involving the complainant in a false case, upon which, the Police, Jinnaram altered the section of law from 304-A to 302 and 201 IPC and took up the investigation. The complainant was tried for the above offence vide case bearing S.C.No. 178/2004 which ended in acquittal on 29-10-2004. Again, an appeal was preferred by the State before Honourable High Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.59/2006 which was dismissed on 13-06-2008. Having waited till appeal time is over, complainant approached Ops 1 and 2 with a request to settle the claim but of no avail. Hence, the Complainant got issued a notice on 19-3-2010 which the Ops acknowledged but failed to respond. As such, filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards death claim of the life assured along with interest @ 36% p.a. from 18-8-2000 till realization; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards advocate fee and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The Opposite party No.2 filed written statement and the same is adopted by Opposite party No.1 through a memo. It is mainly contended that the complaint of complainant is not maintainable since the same is barred by limitation under the provisions of Act and the complainant did not file any petition seeking condonation of delay.
3. It is further contended that they are not aware that the complainant was husband of Smt.Arifunnisa Begum who was working as Government Teacher at Narayanpet. It is denied that Arifunnissa Begum took accident policy for the reason that she never submitted a proposal for issuance of personal accident policy and she did not file any such proposal seeking coverage of the insurance. The complainant himself forged the signature of Arifunnissa Begum with a malafide intention, misrepresented the facts and applied the policy to gain illegally. At no point of time the policy was obtained by Arifunnissa Begum. Complainant made all the acts in obtaining the policy with a malafide intention to gain from the companies and to enrich himself, he obtained various policies from all the four Public sector Insurance companies to a tune of Rs.1.2 crores. That the complainant had no insurable interest as the relationship between Arifunnissa Begum and himself is not established byany relation as he himself committed an offence of murder for which the complainant was charged under section 302 and 201 IPC. Though complainant was acquitted of the charges, it revealed the criminal intention of complainant having fraudulent approach. Mere obtaining of policy in the name of insured person by the proposer does not entitle the complainant for policy benefits. All the insurance contract are based on the principle of utmost good faith. Any breach of this principle would render the contract void. There is a serious breach of insurable interest in this case as complainant is not entitled to take insurance in the name of deceased in the absence of any relationship. The complainant made the insurance on the basis of impersonation and forgery which will render any contract, including that of Insurance, void.
It is further stated that criminal court while passing the judgment, in para No.46, had observed that the result of criminal case shall be no impact, influence, reference and bearing on other cases, if any, pending against the accused (complainant) in connection with the insurance policies in any court or courts. The criminal court gave a categorical finding that the accused is only acquitted as prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused and it does not have any effect on the case or cases relating to insurance policies. The death of deceased is an accident is only a concocted version of complainant in order to claim monies. The murder as defined by the APEX COURT is not an accident and complainant did not place any material before this Forum to show that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The complainant intimated the death of Smt.Arifunnissa Begum and submitted no documents or enclosures.
That one Mr.Ananda Kumar, the then Branch Manager of OP No.1 deposed before III-Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Medak deposed as PW12 in Sessions Case No.178/2004 wherein he explained why the complainant is not entitled for the monies. The complainant made any phone calls are all false. For the first time, the complainant submitted claim statement on 4-1-2010 stating to have enclosed copy of FIR, inquest report, death certificate and PME report but without enclosing them and they were enclosed only by way of letter dated 11-1-2010 and immediately these opposite parties have replied the complainant stating that the claim was reported for first time after ten years and as such as per terms and conditions of the policy, the delay of the claim cannot be entertained. Thereafter complainant issued notice on 26-3-2010 and before the reply was given, the present complaint is filed.
It is denied the allegation of malicious prosecution. On verification, it is found that the complainant had obtained various policies from various Companies and thus he tried to gain illegally by forging the signatures of Smt.Arifunnissa Begum. The opposite party furnished the details of (22) policy numbers and the assured sum thereof stated to have been obtained by Complainant from different branches of different companies, to the tune of Rs.1.21 crores. It is further alleged that on perusal of various policies, it is evident that the policies are disproportionate to the income of Smt.Arifunnissa Begum. Usually, it is a practice that an amount of 60 times of the monthly income is allowed as coverage under the personal accident policies but here, it exceeded such amount by several times. The policies obtained are admittedly disproportionate to the income of deceased. There is no deficiency on the part of Ops as the complainant did not make the claim in time. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Complainant let evidence in the form of his affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Whereas the Opposite parties failed to file affidavits on its behalf in spite of giving sufficient opportunity and no document is filed to prove its contention. Whereas the complainant filed written arguments on his side. Arguments of both sides heard, Perused the record.
5. The point for consideration is 1) whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim as stated in the complaint? 2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim? And if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of policy schedule along with terms and conditions. Ex.A2 is the carbon copy of representation dated 18-8-2000 addressed to OP No.1. Ex.A3 is original postal acknowledgement dated 22-8-2000 acknowledged by OP No.1; original postal receipt bearing No.3503 and original postal acknowledgement acknowledged by OP No.2. Ex.A4 is the Photostat copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.178/2002 on the file of III-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak. Ex.A5 is Photostat copy of the Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.59/2006 on the file of Honourable High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad. Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 19-03-2010. Ex.A7 is the Photostat copy of deposition of PW12 in S.C.No.178/2002. Ex.A8 is office copy of written representation by complainant to the OP No.1 on 11-1-2010. Ex.A9 is FIR. Ex.A10 is Postmortem Report and Ex.A11 is inquest Panchanama Report.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the date of death of the deceased and also intimation of death of the deceased policyholder. The dispute is that the complainant himself killed the deceased and that the cause of death of deceased is not an accident. To prove the same, nothing is brought on record by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. Even the opposite parties did not choose to file the proposal form of the policy under dispute to show that the signature found on it is a forged one. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Government Teacher and must be drawing salary from the place of work. Certainly, there would be some record in the office where the deceased works with her signatures and the opposite parties had plenty of opportunity to disprove the contention of complainant, which is lacking in the instant case. Admittedly, the complainant informed the fact of death to the opposite parties as long back in the year 2000 itself which is not in dispute. Why the opposite parties kept quiet for all these long years without replying to complainant is a matter of great concern. It speaks volumes of the laches on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim. There was ample and abnormal time for the opposite parties to respond to the claim petition of the complainant but that was not done in the instant case. Merely because the complaint is not filed within the period of two years from the date of cause of action will not oust the right of complainant until and unless the result and action of the claim petition is communicated to the claimant. It is not the cause of the opposite parties that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on certain ground. Even as on today, the claim of the complainant is not repudiated by the opposite parties for the reasons best known. No document is filed in that aspect. All the time, the opposite parties cannot make the claimant quiet for abnormal period of time without answering the claim. The opposite parties cannot justify its own action by not answering the claim of the claimant. Whatever the case may be, the opposite parties failed to convey the action taken as against the claim of complainant. The cause of action in the instant case is a continuing cause of action and it concludes immediately after communication of the result of action. The complaint has to be filed from the date of last cause of action. Surprisingly, the opposite parties failed to inform the result on the claim of complainant even after lapse of almost a decade which shows the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties simply cannot wash its hands by saying that the complaint is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the application for settlement of claim of the complainant is still kept pending. The complainant is not communicated of his claim as to the entitlement or disentitlement, by the opposite parties even as on today.
8. Admittedly, the criminal charges against the accused are acquitted both by the Sessions Court and the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which can be evident from the documents exhibited as A4 and A5 respectively. And that might be the reason the complainant kept quiet all these days not demanding the monies covered by the policy. When there is no evidence on record that the complainant is the perpetrator of the crime, nothing can be fastened against him and an inference has to be drawn that the death of the deceased is an accidental death. The onus lies on the opposite parties to prove that the cause of death is not an accidental one.
9. The opposite parties did not choose to file any document to disprove the claim of Complainant. Even the opposite parties did not oppose the documents got exhibited by complainant as A1 to A8. A perusal of Ex.A4 show that as much as (18) witnesses are examined; (21) documents are exhibited and (2) material objects are marked to bring home the guilt of the accused in S.C.No.178/2002 but the prosecution failed to materialize in bringing the guilt of the accused. It is not in dispute that the complainant did not furnish the copies of FIR, PME and Inquest report to the opposite parties. Both of them did not took pains to file the same. A perusal of the FIR, Inquest panchanama and the Post Mortem Report of the deceased disclose that the deceased died accidentally. And there is no rebuttal brought on record by the opposite parties to disprove the same.
10. The complainant had to wait for long stretch of time to seek his legitimate benefits and due to the laches on the part of opposite parties the complainant should not suffer. There is no record to show that the cause of death of the deceased is not an accidental one. And in these circumstances, there is no other way except to accept the claim of the complainant. In any view of the matter, the complainant is legally entitled for the policy benefit and accordingly we allow the claim at Rs.6,00,000/-. Admittedly, the complainant is a retired Police Officer and is well acquainted of the legal procedure. He is not a layman but instead a law knowing man. Certainly, he ought to have reminded the opposite parties and pressed them for release of policy benefit. Except the vague and bald allegation that he made several telephonic calls, nothing is brought on record to show that he pursued the claim with the opposite parties. There are laches on the part of both parties. Hence, we feel it justified in granting interest on the assured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of complaint which would meet the ends of justice.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and direct the opposite parties to pay the accidental benefit of Rs.6,00,000/- (covered by the policy in dispute) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., 12-4-2010 onwards till realization and further grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the ordeals undergone by complainant and on account of deficient services rendered by opposite parties and causing inconvenience to complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the complaint. Time for compliance : one month.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 15th day of September, 2010
President (FAC)/Senior Member Male Member
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite parties
3) Spare copy Copy delivered to the complainant/
Opp.Parties On ____________
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
