FA.No.867/2008 against CC.No.9/2007 District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between:

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

206 and 207 Saptagiri Towers,

Begumpet, Hyderabad – 16.

…Appellant/Opp.Party.

And

Miss. P.Ramyakrishna,

D/o.late P.Venkateshwarlu,

20 years, Plot No.48 and 48, Flat No.506,

Saikrishna Towers, Kukatpally,

Hyderabad – 72.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant         : Mr.V.Sambasiva Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent     : Mr.U.Venkateswara Rao.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order  

2.         The case of the complainant in short is that her father took an insurance policy under tailor made personal accident scheme for Engineering students and parents by paying a premium of Rs.660/, whereby in case of death of the student, the Insurance Company would pay Rs.2,00,000/- and in case of death of the parents, the Insurance Company would  reimburse Rs.3,00,000/-, apart from the tution fee of not more than Rs.25,000/- per annum and hostel fee of Rs.25,000/- per annum.  While so, her father died in a road accident on 20.8.2004 and although the death claim of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid, the Insurance Company refused to pay tution fee of Rs.25,000/- per annum and Rs.25,000/- towards hostel fee covered under clause 1(b) of the said policy.  Therefore, she filed the complaint claiming the amounts together with interest and costs.

     3.    The Insurance Company resisted the case. While admitting the issuance of policy and payment of Rs.3  She had submitted a receipt dated 4.6.2005 issued by Sri Sandhya Women’s Hostel for Rs.2  When an investigator was appointed he opined that they were all fabricated.  Even in the notice issued by the complainant she claimed only Rs.45,000/- towards tution fee and Rs.50,000/- towards hostel or boarding charges for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and she did not claim hostel charges in the complaint.  Therefore, it prayed that the claim was false and it has to be rejected.

4.         The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.9, while the opposite party Insurance Company filed affidavit evidence of its Asst. Manager,  and got the documents marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the tution fee of Rs.45

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the fact that the investigator, who was appointed by it, found that the receipt which was furnished by the complainant was false.  She never stayed in hostel and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the appellant Insurance Company had issued a policy covering the liability of the parents as well as the student studying in the engineering college whereby in case of death of the parent during subsistence of the policy, the Insurance Company would pay Rs.3,00,000/- and in case of death of the student, the Insurance Company would pay Rs.2,00,000/- besides that it would reimburse Rs.25,000/- per annum towards tution fee and Rs.25,000/- per annum towards hostel charges.  It is also not in dispute that the father of the complainant died in a road accident and based on the claim an amount of Rs.3  The complainant has filed Ex.A.3 fee receipt to show that she had paid Rs.22  No doubt she also claimed Rs.25  However, she did not claim the said amount in the complaint.  The Insurance Company alleged that it has appointed an investigator who found that the receipts pertaining to the tution fee is fabricated.  The report of the investigator was not filed.  Even otherwise there is no proof that the investigator has confronted Ex.A.3 fee receipt with the Principal of St.Martin’s Engineering College to state that it was fabricated.  It is not known where from the  could gather information that the fee receipts filed by the complainant were false.  Obviously, in order to evade the payment on the death of her father, the Insurance Company conducted this probe.  We reiterate that there is no proof that the fee receipt that was filed by the complainant was fabricated.  Evidently, she was pursuing studies in engineering by the date of the death of her father.  We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact by the District Forum in this regard.  There are no merits in the appeal.

9.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.2        

PRESIDENT                   

MEMBER

DtVvr.