P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 410/2007 against CD 315/2005 on the file of the
District Forum, Guntur
Between:
- M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd
Rep. by its Divisional Manager
D.O.- VIII, Dakshinapan Shopping complex
Kolkata, rep. by its Regional Manager
Regional office, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
- United India Insurance Company Ltd
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
D.O., Durga Complex,
Pandaripuram, Chilkaluripet, Guntur District,
Rep. by its Regional Manager
Regional Officer, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad … Appellants/Opposite parties
And
- Mohammad Ameer, S/o Gayasuddin,
R/o 5th Line, Maddi Nagar,
Chilkaluripet, Guntur District.
- Smt. Mohammad Shakeeroon
W/o Mohammad Ameer,
R/o 5th Line, Maddi Nagar,
Chilkaluripet, Guntur District.
- Ravi Oil Stores
Rep. by its prop. Smt. Thava indiravathi,
Kasturibai Road, Chilkaluripet,
Guntur District.
- S. S. Enterprises, rep. by its Prop. Shaik Johny Basha,
K.B. Road, Chilkaluripet,
Guntur District. … Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. . T. K. Sreedhar
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. T. V. P. Prabhakar
CORAM :
SMT. M. SHREESHA … HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI K. SATYANAND .. HON’BLE MEMBER
Wednesday, the Sixteenth Day of December, Two Thousand Nine.
Oral order : ( as per M. Shreesha, Hon’ble Member )
********
Aggrieved by the order in C. D. 315/2005 on the file of the District Forum ,Guntur , the opposite parties preferred this appeal
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants 1 and 2 are the parents of late Md. Esubu Johny who was an electrician and mechanic for Generators and Tractors. The complainant’s son purchased Servo Oil from Ravi Oil Stores and S. S. Enterprises at Chilakaluripet from 19.7.2003 to 6.8.2003 under five policies, out of which, 4 polices worth Rs.50,000/- each and one policy worth Rs.one lakh. In all, he was covered for Rs. 3 lakhs and the same was insured and the complainant submits that the dealer issued valid bills and the policies to that extent. On 10.08.2003, the insured died in a road accident instantaneously on the spot and the case was also registered in Cr. No. 258/2003 and an inquest and post mortem were also conducted. The opposite parties collected original copies of the policies through their investigator on 24.02.2005 but repudiated the claim saying that the certificates issued did not establish the sale of schemed products of Servo oil and no valid reasons are mentioned therein. The complainants submit that the record clearly discloses that the deceased died during the validity of the policies and the bills issued by the Oil dealers are genuine and submit that the repudiation amounts to deficiency in service and seek direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3 lakhs covered under 5 policies along with interest , Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs.
The opposite parties filed counter stating that they introduced a scheme” Servo-Uttam Suraksha” Group Personal Accident Insurance policy which covers the customers of ‘ Servo” range of lubricants oil on purchase of a specified quantity. The certificates will bear the signature of the competent authority and it also bears the signature of the insured person and the authorized seller will discharge the certificate under his signature with office seal and the dealers code. The opposite parties introduced the scheme from 09.05.2003 to 08.05.2004. The opposite parties contend that the insurance coverage on buying the specified quantity of the schemed product under single cash memo only, whereas, the dealer issued two cash memos dated 22.7.2003 ad 23.7.2003 vide no. 377 and 383 and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Two oil stores, i.e., Ravi Oil Stores and S.S. enterprises of Chilakaluripet and the claimant colluded with each other to gain amount wrongfully from them by issuing back dated cash memo and insurance certificate to the claimant. The Oil Stores, i.e., Ravi Oil Stores issued two bills on dated 22.7.2003 and 23.07.2003 showing that the deceased purchased 5 litres of oil on those two days and since both the bills on two different dates is not entitled to the amounts. The opposite parties further contend that Ravi Oil Stores dealer issued cash memo dated 1.8.2003 in bill no. 23, which is originally a three digit number bill i.e, 230 and the last digit is struck with pen which shows the attitude of the complainant with the stores dealer and contend that there is deficiency in service on behalf of them.
The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced on record i.e., Ex. A1 to A-12 and Ex. B1 to B-9 and the pleadings put forward by the parties, allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24.2.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.2000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal..
The facts not in dispute are that the opposite parties introduced a scheme” Servo-Uttam Suraksha” Group Personal Accident Insurance policy which is issued to the customers of ‘ Servo” range of lubricants oil. According to the scheme, the authorized seller will discharge the certificate under his signature with office seal and the dealers code and each cash memo number against the date on which the certificate was issued has been mentioned clearly in the certificate of Insurance Company. This policy was introduced for the period from 09.05.2003 to 08.05.2004. It is the case of the complainants that their son has purchased Servo” range of lubricants oil regularly since he was an electrician and mechanic by profession. It is their case that the deceased purchased Servo Oil from Ravi Oil Stores and S. S. Enterprises at Chilakaluripet from 19.7.2003 to 6.8.2003 under five policies, out of which, 4 polices worth Rs.50,000/- each and one policy worth Rs.one lakh. In all, he was covered for Rs. 3 lakhs and the same were insured and the dealer issued valid bills and the policies to that extent. It is also not in dispute that on 10.8.2003 the insured died in road accident instantaneously on the spot and the case was also registered in Cr. No. 258/2003. A claim was preferred by the complainants herein with the opposite parties who collected the original copies of the policies through their investigator who repudiated the claim on 24.02.2005 on the ground that the certificate issued did not establish the sale of schemed products of Servo Oil.
It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that under clause 9 of Servo Suraksha Tailor Made Group personnel Accident policy the customers are entitled to Insurance Coverage on buying specified quanity of the schemed product under single case memo only whereas the dealer has issued two cash memos dated 22.7.2003 and 23.7.2003 vide nos. 377 and 383 and issued certificate of insurance No. 563938 and violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite parties submitted that the claimants have colluded with the dealer and created non-existing bills and that the investigation report dated Ex.B8 was not considered which is throwing light on the fraud committed by the claimants and that the District Forum erred in disbelieving Ex. A-1, A4 and A5.
We observe from the record that Ex. A-1 is the policy for Rs.50,000/- and the certificate has issued in bill no. 369 for 10 litres of Servo Oil and also signed by the authorized signature of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the policy for Rs.50,000/- we do not see any inconformity in the order of the District Forum with respect to this amount. We now address ourselves to address Ex. A2 policy No.563938. This Ex.A2 shows two bills for 5 litres each on 22.7.2003 and 23.7.2003. In order to sow minimum of 10 litres, 5 litres were purchased on two different dates and this violates condition no.1 of Ex. A2 which reads as follows :
“ Insurance cover against the purchase of minimum 10 litres of Servo products/ packs covered in the scheme in one Cash memo/Bill”.
Since Ex. A-2 violated this condition Rs.50,000/- cannot be entertained and the District Forum has justified in not allowing the claim. Ex. A3 is a certificate No.476322 issued for 20 litres of oil and policy for Rs.one lakh. On this, the District Forum observed that there was correction in the seial no.239. On careful perusal of Ex. A3, we observe that 239 serial no. corrected as 23 and raised doubt whether this bill has been fabricated. Since the complainant has not been able to establish that this bill is a genuine one this claim also cannot be entertained.
Ex. A4 is the certificate No.563152 dated 4.8.2003 for purchase of 10 litres on 4.8.2003 and the claim is for Rs.50,000/-. On perusal of Ex. A4 we are of the considered view that this is a genuine transaction and the District Forum has rightly allowed it for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.
Ex. A5 is the certificate no. 563154 dated 6.8.2003, under which, the insured purchased 10 litres of oil which is also a genuine transaction and the District Forum has rightly allowed Rs.50,000/- under Ex. A5 . Taking into consideration that A1 for Rs.50,000/- , Ex. A4 for Rs.50,000/- and Ex. A5 for Rs.50,000/- alone have been allowed by the District Forum and on careful perusal of these certificates, we are of the considered opinion that these three bills are genuine.
It is pertinent to note that the complainants did not prefer any appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under Ex. A2 certificate two bills have been issued for 5 litres each on 22.7.2003 and 23.7.2003 and this is in violation of condition no. 1 of the policy. Since this amount has not been allowed by the District Forum this contention is untenable. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum and this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, this appeal fails confirming the order of the District Forum. But, in the circumstances of the case, no costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt: 16.12.2009.
