FA.No.1092/2008 against CC.No.488/2007 District Consumer Forum, Guntur.

Between:

1.The Manager,

2.The Regional Manager,

   Zonal Office, Guntur.

…Appellants/

And

1.Rayavarapu    W/

2.Rayavarapu

   S/

3.Rayavarapu    S/

(2 and 3 being minors rep. by mother guardian 1^st complainant)

 (All are r/at D.No.1-44-22, Dandubata Road,

Vykuntapuram,

…Respondents 1 to 3/Complainants.

4.The Secretary,

5.AMP

6.The Secretary, O/Hyderabad.

…R.4 to R.6/Opp.Parties 3 to 5.

Counsel for the Appellants                  :  Counsel for the Respondents            :  

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

SMT.M.SHREESHA

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per

*******

            Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 

1.         After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2.         The opposite parties preferred this appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum,   and a further sum of Rs.80,000/- with interest at 9% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

3.         The case of the complainants in brief is that the 1^st complainant is the wife and 2^nd and 3^rd complainants are sons of the deceased   During his life time he invested an amount of Rs.20  The date of redemption was Rs.29.11.2005 and money payable was Rs.80  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had tied up with the 4^th opposite party Insurance Company.  The 1^st complainant is the nominee in the said policy.  While so,   When the 1^st complainant made claim, the opposite parties have not settled the claim.  Though she represented before Ombudsman, Chennai nothing was settled, and therefore, she filed the complaint claiming the amounts covered under the bonds together with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

4.         Though the appellants had engaged an advocate, did not choose to file their version.  The other opposite parties did not choose to contest the matter.  As against 4^th opposite party Insurance Company the complainant has not pressed the claim. 

5.         The 1^st complainant in proof of her case filed an affidavit along with Exs.A.1 to A.14.  The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record and in the light of the fact that Ex.A.2 certificate showed that an amount of Rs.80,000/- was payable to her, the same was awarded together with compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and costs of Rs.1,000/-. 

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.  The District Forum ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the said amount. They have not issued any debenture certificates or assured any promises to pay the said amount.  Therefore, they prayed that the appeal be allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. 

7.         It is an undisputed fact that Ex.A  The date of redemption was 29.11.2005.  The 1^st complainant being the nominee under the said certificate is entitled to collect the amount on the death of the deceased.  Ex.A.2 is the copy of certificate of insurance issued by AMP   For the reasons best known to them, they issued certificate stipulating three years period though insurance policy was taken only for one year.  The District Forum opined that it could have taken for the entire period in order to mulct the responsibility on the Insurance Company.  Beyond the one year period it could not be ordered to pay the amount.  The complainants have issued legal notices under Ex.A.8 to A.10 which was received evidence under Ex.A.14.  Evidently, they did not give any reply.  Necessarily, an adverse inference has to be drawn invoking Sec.114 of Evidence Act.  There is no reason as to why they did not respond to the registered legal notice when the complainants claimed the amounts covered under the policy.  The appellants are bound to pay the amount covered under debenture certificate they having been issued it.      Absolutely, there are no merits in the appeal.  The District Forum after considering the evidence in proper perspective awarded the amounts covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 besides awarding nominal amount of Rs.30  It cannot be said that the said amount is excessive or beyond proportion.  Awarding of interest at 9% per annum is reasonable and modest.  We do not see any merits in the appeal.

8.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.       

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt