BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 629/2008 against C.C. 338 /2007,  Dist. Forum-II, Hyderabad.   

Between:

A. Prakash, S/o. Viswanatha Rao        

Age: 53 years, Business        

Flat No. 208,  Sheetal Avenue

Near Koundilya Club

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad-55                         ***                           Appellant/

            Complainant.     

                                                                   And

1)  The Manager (Claims)

Life Insurance  Corporation of India  Ltd.

2/46, Jaya Rama Rao Street

Srikalahasti, Chittoor Dist.

2)  The Senior Divisional Manager (Claims)

Life Insurance  Corporation of India  Ltd.

Divisional Office, Dargamitta

Nellore-524 003.

3)  The Regional Manager

Life Insurance  Corporation of India  Ltd.

South Central Zonal Office

Saifabad, Hyderabad-3.                              ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the  Appellant:                         M/s.  Shashank Goel

Counsel for the  Respondent:                     M/s.  Aruna Mantripragada.  

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                                                   &

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER.
                                                         

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                The complainant preferred this appeal against the order of the Dist. Forum in declining to grant  interest  @ 12% p.a., on Rs. 3,01,098/- from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005, Rs. 1,905/- towards cheques clearing charges,   enhanced  compensation  of  Rs. 50,000/- and costs  of  Rs. 10,000/-. 

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that late Rajesh Artham his son had taken two policies wherein he was kept as  nominee.   While so, his son was murdered on 10.1.2005 at Bangalore basing on which a case was registered in Crime No. 50/2005.    He informed the insurance company and claimed the death benefits by submitting the relevant documents.    The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 3, 01,098/- vide cheque dt. 12.8.2005 as part payment of claim but it did not disclose about balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh  towards  death benefits as per the policy.    He deposited the cheque on 23.8.2005 which got cleared on 23.9.2005.  A sum of Rs. 1,350/- was levied towards clearing charges.    When he requested to arrange balance of amount of Rs. 1 lakh besides interest from 10.1.2005 till the date of realization and interest on Rs. 3, 01,098/- from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005 and Rs. 1,350/- towards clearing charges he was directed to submit a  court’s  verdict.    An amount of Rs. 1 lakh covered under the policy was cleared by issuing cheque on 16.2.2007 drawn on Andhra Bank, Srikalahasti.   When he demanded interest they refused to pay.   For the death caused on 10.1.2005   amount was released on 12.8.2005 i.e., 7 months after his death without giving any explanation for delay.    He was entitled to interest @ 24% p.a., equally so interest on Rs. 1 lakh which was settled after two years.     He was entitled to Rs. 1,350/- towards clearing charges   He claimed interest on all these amounts together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-

3)                The respondent insurance company resisted the case.   While denying the allegations made against it, however admitted  the assured having taken the policies mentioned in the complaint.    The complainant himself delayed in submitting the relevant documents.    The identity of the victim was not established either in FIR or post-mortem examination report.  After confirming, it had settled the BSA + ASA + bonus and paid the claim amount of Rs. 3, 01,098/- on 12.8.2005 by way of cheque despatched on 16.8.2005.   There was no delay on its part.    He himself deposited the cheque in his account on 23.8.2005.  He did not mention the reasons why there was delay in deposit.   When there was no request from the complainant to issue the cheque on a particular bank, it had issued the  cheque from one of its offices located at Srikalahasti.    Levying of clearing charges by the bank is as per the rules.    They neither need to pay interest nor clearing charges of Rs. 1,905/-.    The complainant himself in person handed over the discharge voucher vide his letter Dt. 15.2.2007, and immediately cheque dt. 16.2.2007 was handed over to him which he acknowledged on the voucher.    It is clear that the alleged blank discharge voucher sent earlier on 5.2.2007   by R1 might have been delivered on 20.2.2007 when the complainant returned to Hyderabad after taking delivery of the cheque on 16.2.2007.   As per Regulation No. 8(5) of IRDA Regulations, 2002 it was ready to pay Rs. 14,233/- towards interest @ 8% p.a.  Only on establishment of the identity of the deceased the claim was settled on 12.8.2005.  There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore  prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A29 marked, while the respondents filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager, Divisional Officer and did not file any documents.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the insurance company was liable to pay   interest @ 12% p.a.,  from 10.1.2005 to 15.2.2007 on Rs. 1 lakh together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of  Rs. 1,000/-.

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.  It ought to have awarded interest   at 12% p.a.,  on     Rs. 3, 01,098/- from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005 besides Rs. 1,905/- towards clearing charges.  It ought to have awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that  two policies taken by son of the complainant were almost settled except  interest @ 12% p.a.,  to be paid from the date of death of assured  till the date of settlement viz.,  from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005.    He also claims an amount of Rs. 1,905/- towards cheques clearance charges besides enhancement of compensation   of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/- against Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum respectively. 

9)                Admittedly the assured died on 10.1.2005 when he was murdered at Bangalore.   It is specific case of the insurance company that the identity of the deceased could not be known from FIR or Post-mortem examination etc.  Only after he filed final charge sheet it could know the death of the assured.   For the reasons best known the complainant did not controvert the said fact nor filed copies of FIR, Post-mortem examination report etc.  

10)              Equally when the respondent insurance company alleges that only after filing of the charge sheet they had settled the claim on 12.8.2005 and cheque was dispatched on 16.8.2005.  At the cost of repetition, we may state that the complainant when he filed his affidavit evidence did not deny these facts.    When the complainant did not controvert the said fact, it must be held that the delay if any was due to complainant in not  furnishing the required information.    Therefore  the Dist. Forum has  rightly declined to grant  interest   on Rs.  3,01,098/- from 10.1.2005 to 12.08.2005.    The complainant ought to have filed those documents at least by way of additional evidence to show that there was no delay on his part in submitting the record.   The allegation of the respondent that there was delay in submitting all these records was not controverted,   equally  so  on  the  interest  that  was  awarded on the policy of Rs. 1 lakh at 12% p.a., from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005.    In fact the insurance  company itself was ready to pay Rs. 14,233/- towards interest @ 8% p.a.  by virtue of delay in settling the claim.   Obviously after the complainant furnished the discharge voucher vide his letter dt. 15.2.2005, a cheque was prepared on 16.2.2005 and handed over to the complainant which was acknowledged.    In the light of above  the Dist. Forum has rightly declined to award any interest on Rs. 3,01,098/- from 10.1.2005 to 12.8.2005.

11)              The complainant has also claimed  the amount  collected towards cheque clearance charges.  When  R1 has categorically stated that there was no request or instructions from the complainant  for issuance of cheque  of a particular bank, as per the  prevailing  practice,   he  has issued a  cheque on  their office at Srikalahasti and therefore  the  bank had collected cheque clearance charges for which  it  should not be penalized.   We do agree with the reasoning of the  Dist. Forum in this regard.    The complainant is not entitled to the said charges.

12)              The complainant having received the entire amount barring the above said amounts, he claimed Rs. 50,000/-  towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.    The complainant did not allege as to how he was entitled to  compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.    The insurance company has settled the claim as soon as it received the relevant documents.    It is the complainant  who could not  produce all the relevant  material in time  that made the  insurance company  to  delay  in  settlement.    At any rate, whatever be  the  delay  he  was  compensated by awarding compensation of  Rs. 5,000/- which we feel just and adequate.    In regard to costs of Rs. 10,000/- claimed by him, he did not file any proof  that  he has spent  Rs. 10,000/- towards legal expenses.  He did not file any certificate obtained from his counsel in order to claim Rs. 10,000/-.  When there  is  no evidence whatsoever, we are of the opinion  that the costs of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum is quite reasonable and modest.   We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

13)              In the result the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

   Dt.  21.  07.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”