BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 29th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 11/08
Between:
S.Samel Raju, S/o. S.Rajanna,
Teacher, New SC Colony, Nandavaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Mandal Educational Officer,
Nandavaram Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
2. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Yemmiganur.
3. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
Kadapa.
4. The Manager (Legal), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
Kadapa ,
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.S.U.Javid Ali , Advocate for opposite party No.2,3 and 4 and opposite party No.1 set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President )
C.C.No.11/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking directions on the opposite parties with joint and several liability to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- assured amount with 24% interest , Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite party and Rs.1,000/- as cost of three legal notices and cost of the case, alleging the deceased K. Rangamma – wife of the complainant – insured her life under 15 years Jeevan Surabhi Policy with opposite party NO.2 for an assured amount of Rs.50,000/- and obtained policy No.652151533 on 25-12-1999 and after paying two monthly premiums she requested the opposite party No.1 - under whom she was working as teacher – vide her letter dated 8-6-2000 to cause deductions of the monthly premium amount from her salary and remit the said as premium of said policy and the premium was remitted to said policy accordingly by opposite party No.1 and while such is so she died 2-7-2000 with sickness and so the complainant as her nominee submitted claim to opposite party No.2 with all required documents , but his claim was not settled as opposite party No.2 post poned it on promises and so a letter was addressed on 18-2-2005 to opposite party No.1 and legal notices to opposite parties 2 and 3 on 11-10-2005 demanding settlement of claim and as there was no response to it another notice was caused to opposite party No.2 on 30-12-2005 for which the opposite party No.4 vide letter dated 9-1-2006 responded requesting the complainant to wait for some more time and so a notice dated 20-8-2007 was addressed to opposite party No.2 and that also not bear the fruit as opposite party No.1 except replying vide letter dated 10-9-2007 did not settle the claim and constrain him to file this case .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.1 was set ex-parte for its not filling written version inspite of several adjournments, the opposite parties 2 to 4 contested the case filling written version of the opposite party NO.4 and its adoption by opposite party NO. 2 and 3 .
3. The written version of the opposite party NO.4 admits of the policy infavour of K. Rangamma wife of complainant and her demise on 2-7-2000 but allege of its intimation to opposite party No.2 only on 8-2-2005 vide a letter and thereby opportunity was denied to the opposite parties for probing into the claim immediately on her demise and so the time is sought from time to time for enquiry into the said claim and so not repudiated the claim and now prepared to accept the claim on ex-gratia basis on the policy for Rs.50,000/- with bonus and interest of 8% p.a with effect from 18-2-2005 i.e, the date on which the death of the policy holder was intimated to opposite party No.2 .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A.10 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his contentions, the opposite party side merely relied upon the sworn affidavit of opposite party NO.4 in support of its contentions.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled from the opposite parties as claimed.
6. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox of Jeevan Surabhi Policy No.652151533 it show the name of K Ranagamma an insured for Rs.50,000/- and it as a policy of 15 years tenure with profits and accumulated benefits with date of its commencement as 15-12-1999 as the date of maturity as 15-12-2014 and it as under salary saving scheme and amount payable as assured sum with vested bonus if demise of policy holder is before the dated of maturity and the complainant as her nominee . There being any denial of the said policy and its contents by the insurer the Ex.A1 is held established as it stands for .
7. The Ex.A2 is Xerox of letter dated 8-6-2000 addressed by K. Rangamma to opposite party No.1 requesting the latter for causing deduction of periodical premium amounts of the policy she has taken with effect from February, 2000 to June 2000 from her salary for its proper remittance to concerned LIC policy . The contents of this letter being not disputed by the opposite parties the said document is established as per its contents especially when the Ex.A3 xerox of the pay bill of K. Rangamma for the month June 2000 envisaging the deduction and compliance of her request by necessary deductions accordingly.
8. The Ex.A4 is certified of death issued by Registrar of birth and deaths Kurnool Municipal Corporation. It envisages the demise of K. Rangamma on second July, 2000 . In the absence of any material disputing the correctness of it , the Ex.A4 is held established by the complainant as to be fact of the demise of said Rangamma.
9. The EX.A5 is the office copy of letter dated 18-2-2005 addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.2 requiring for settlement of insurance claim preferred by him on demise of his wife who was holding policy NO. 652151533 . The Ex.A6 is office copy of legal notice 11-10-2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 at the instructions of the complainant seeking settlement of insurance claim of the complainant . The Ex.A7 is the office copy of legal notice 30-12-2005 caused to opposite party No.2at the instructions of the complainant to settle the insurance claim of the complainant. The Ex.A9 is another legal notice dated 20-8-2007 caused to opposite parties 2 and 3 at the instructions of the complainant seeking settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant . All of them are vague as to when the claim were submitted actually by the complainant giving death intimation of the policy holder. Neither the complaint avements nor the averments of sworn affidavit of the complaint nor his reply to interrogatory No.1 of opposite party is clear on that aspect as it also says as vaguely as mentioned in EX.A5 to A9. Therefore in the absence of any cogent specific and clear material as to when the complainant has given the death intimation of policy holder and set his insurance claim prior to 18-2-2005, in the light of admission of the opposite parties in their written version it has to be taken as one first made on 18-2-2005 vide Ex.A5 .
10. In the light of admission of the opposite parties in their written version as to its preparedness to pay the assured amount with bonus and benefits on ex-gratia basis and the terms and conditions of the Ex.A1 policy warrants the payment of assured amount with vested bonus when demise of policy holder is prior to the date of maturity and as there being any material as to correspondence to opposite parties as to insurance claim of the complainant prior to Ex.A5 , the complainant is entitled to seek assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with vested bonus and interest from the date of Ex.A5 only .
11. As there is any cogent material showing any liability concern of the opposite party No.1 to the insurance claim of the complainant the case against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.
12. In the same way the privy of insurance if any being with opposite party No.2 and 3 its divisional office and not with the opposite party No.4 the case against opposite party No.4 is dismissed .
13. Consequently, the complaint is allowed on joint and several liability of opposite parties 2 and 3 directing them to pay to the complainant the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- under Ex.A1 policy along with vested bonus and interest at 9% p.a from 18-2-2005 and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this case and complainant was driven to the forum by the opposite parties for redressal of his grievances . Time granted for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of the order . In default the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly and severally shall be liable to pay to the complainant the supra stated award with 12% interest p.a from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 29th day of August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox Copy of Policy No.652151533
Ex.A2. Letter of Policy holder 1 dated 8-6-2000 to OP 1.
Ex.A3. Xerox Copy of Pay bill for month of June’2000 pertaining to deceased.
Ex.A4. Death Certificate
Ex.A5. Letter Dt.18.02.2005 of Complainant to OP2
Ex.A6. Office copy of legal notice dated 11.10.2005 to Op2 along with Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dated 30.12.2005 along with
Postal acknowledgement.
EX.A8. Letter dated 09.01.2006 of OP2
Ex.A9. Office copy of legal notice dated 20.08.2007 to OP2 & 3 along with postal acknowledgement.
.
EX.A10. Letter dated 01.09.2007 of OP2 in reply to Ex. A-9
.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
