Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/384/2009

Gadi Kamala Bai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K. Pydi Rao

30 Dec 2014

ORDER

Reg.of the Complaint:06-08-2009

Date of Remand:04-08-2012                             

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:30-12-2014 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

      President

2.Sri C.V.N. RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

 

TUESDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

CONSUMER CASE NO.384/2009

 

BETWEEN:

 

1.SMT.GADI KAMALA BAI W/O LATE ANAND KUMAR,

HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.58-20-39,

BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

2.SMT.GADI SALOMI M/O LATE ANAND KUMAR, HINDU,

AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.58-20-39,

BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

3. GADI VENU SRI, D/O LATE ANDAND KUMAR,

HINDU, AGED 24 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.58-20-39,

BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

4.GADI ANIL KUMAR S/O  LATE ANDAND KUMAR,

HINDU, AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.58-20-39,

BUTCHIRAJUPALEM, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

…COMPLAINANTS

AND:

1.M/s RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED,

ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, STEEL PLANT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

2.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., REP. BY

ITS BRANCH MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT STEEL CITY,

DIVISIONAL OFFICE-IV, STEEL PLANT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

…OPPOSITE PARTIES

This case coming on 05-12-2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI K.PYDI RAO, SRI V.S.PAVAN and SRI G.SAIBABA, Advocate for the 1^st OP and of SRI N.NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate for the 2^nd OP and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

 

ORDER

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.     The Complainants filed the resent complaint against the Opposite Parties directing them to pay the insured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a., from 1-9-2003 to till the date of realization and Rs.50,000/- towards causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.     The 2^nd complainant is the mother of the husband of the Complainant and complainants 2 and 3 are the children of the complainant who is no other than the wife of the deceased, who during his life time used to work as Technician in Traffic Department of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and during the course of his employment, the 1^st OP obtained for its employees, Group Personal Accident Policy bearing no.151300/42/3/0000006 with the 2^nd OP Insurance Company. On 30-07-2003, the 1^st Complainant’s husband  while returning to his house in his car bearing Registration No. AP31Q4652, he found blood coming out from his mouth when he reached home, the first complainant made enquiry as to the cause and on that he informed  that his car dashed against the electric pole as a result of which, he sustained injuries in his chest and stomach and later during the course of treatment by Seven Hills Hospital, he died on 26-08-2003 on intimation about the death, the police registered a case in crime No. 65/2003 dated 27-08-2003 and post mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 27-08-2003. Thereupon, the complainants submitted claim from along with relevant documents, the first OP which in turn forwarded the same to the 2^nd OP Insurance company for their claim and on 26-02-2008 but the 2^nd OP repudiated their claim on the ground that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol while driving the car at the time of the accident without any enquiry thereon, hence the complaint.

3.     The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties strongly resisted the claim of the complainants by contending, that the deceased employee Sri G.Anand Kumar who opted for Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy and authorized them to recover the premium and pay the amount to the underwriter and the said employee was covered under the aforesaid Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. They further admitted that G.Ananda Kumar was an employee bearing Employment No.106133 worked as technician in the second OP plant and the same was informed to the 2^nd OP about the death of the deceased employee due to accident, referred supra.  They further admitted that they sent all relevant documents i.e., death certificate, inquest report, Post Mortem and other relevant documents which were submitted by the complainant herein to the 2^nd OP with a letter dated 18-03-2008, requested them to settle the claim. During the correspondence between them, they sought for certain documents and accordingly, they sent. It is also stated that on 19-03-2009, they received a letter dated 26-02-2008 from the 2^nd OP that the deceased employee was under influence of alcohol at the time of accident, hence they repudiated the claim made by the complainant.

4.     The case of the 2^nd OP is that the rejection of the claim is not arbitrary and that an investigator was appointed and an enquiry was conducted. Letters were addressed to the Steel Plant Hospital, seeking for furnishing all the case sheet, discloses that the deceased was under the influence of Alcohol while driving the vehicle and that he was non-cooperative for treatment which could be the reason for his being under influence of alcohol, but the complainants deliberately suppressed the said fact and made a fraudulent claim. It is also their contention that there is no valid marriage between the first Complainant and the deceased and the marriage between the 1^st complainant and her deceased husband, was dissolved by way of divorce by competent court, thus there cannot be any legally valid marriage between the first Complainant and the deceased. For these reasons, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     In the additional counter filed by the 2^nd OP, it is further contended by challenging the case of the complainants on 2 grounds that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of driving the vehicle and that the complainants are not the legal heirs of the deceased to seek compensation for the death of the deceased.

6.     At the time of enquiry, both parties filed their affidavits and got marked Exhibits A1 to A7 on behalf of the Complainants and Exhibits B1 and B6 are marked for the OPs.

7.     Exhibit A1 is the Police Complaint dated 27-08-2003, Exhibit A2 is the FIR No.65/2003 27-08-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Death Certificate of late Sri Anand Kumar dated 26-08-2003, Exhibit A4 is the Post Mortem Certificate dated 27-08-2003, Exhibit A5 is the Letter issued by the 2^nd OP to the Complainants dated 26-02-2008, Exhibit A6 is the Death claim intimation to 2^nd OP by the 1^st OP dated 10-09-2003 and Exhibit A7 is the Legal Heir Certificate of the complainants.

8.     Exhibit B1 is the Admission Record of the 1^st OP, Exhibit B2 is the Death claim intimation to 2^nd OP by the 1^st OP dated 10-09-2003, Exhibit B3 is the letter from 2^nd OP to 1^st OP dated 18-03-2008, Exhibit B4 is the Letter to 2^nd OP by the 1^st OP dated 14-08-2008, Exhibit B5 is the letter from 1^st OP by the 2^nd OP dated 26-02-2008, Exhibit B6 is the  inquest report dated 27-08-2003.

9.     Both parties filed their respective Written arguments. During the course of hearing, the complainant filed I.A.220/14 for adding the Complainants 3 and 4 and it is allowed as per the orders dated 21-11-2014.

10.    Heard oral arguments from both sides.

11.    In view of the respective contentions raised by either side, the point that would arise for determination in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complainants are entitled to any reliefs asked for?

12.    As seen from the record, it is not in dispute that the deceased Anand Kumar employment with the 1^st OP and obtained Insurance Policy Coverage under Janatha Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. It appears as seen from the counter filed by 2^nd OP, they repudiated the claim of the complainants on two grounds i.e., the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and the first Complainant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Anand Kumar.

13.    On a perusal of Exhibit A7, it is evident that the legal heir certificate was issued by the MRO, Visakhapatnam (Urban) which shows the name of the first Complainant as wife, her children Venu Sree, Anil Kumar and her mother-in-law Salomi as legal heirs of Late Gadi Anand Kumar s/o late Kantha Raju and they were declared as Legal heirs to receive all death benefits, family pension, other amounts and from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, insured amount from LIC of India etc., The Complainants filed Exhibit A7 stated to have been issued by the MRO who is competent Authority to issue the same.  Therefore, we feel that much discussion in respect of the complainants as the legal heirs of the deceased Anand Kumar as contended by the OP2 in their written arguments, is not necessary.       Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the complainants proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Anand Kumar by filing Ex.A7.

14.    The 2^nd OP is denying the relationship between the deceased and the first complainant, but they addressed the repudiation letter of claim i.e., Exhibit A5 dated 26-2-2008 to the 1^st and 2^nd Complainants, stating that the deceased employee was under influence of alcohol. But the 2^nd OP denied the relationship of the first Complainant as wife of the deceased and son of the 2^nd complainant. When once the relationship between the first complainant and the deceased was admitted by the 2^nd OP, it is estopped from denying the same. The law prevails that the admission of fact need not be proved. For these reasons also, we hold that the complainant is the wife and the remaining complainants and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Anand Kumar.

15.    The next contention of the 2^nd OP, is that the deceased was under influence of alcohol, while driving the car at the time of accident. But, unfortunately, no piece of paper has been filed by them to prove the said allegation. On the other hand, the evidence let in by the complainants and the Exhibits marked, much less police record clearly and categorically cause to show that it is a natural accident. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 2^nd OP, does not hold any water.

16. The record clearly cause to show that the complainant made the claim in the year 2003 but the OP repudiated the claim in the year 2008 i.e., after laps of 5 years which clearly indicates, the insignificance on the part of the 2^nd OP for all these years which naturally prompted the complainants to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical strain.         For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the action of the 2^nd OP in repudiating the claim to get the insured amount of the deceased insured is nothing but deficiency of service as envisaged under the Act and which forced the complainants to approach this Forum.

17.    Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.   The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 24% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainants appear to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A 6 is in                                 in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is a licensed to claim interest @ 24% p.a. on Ex.A 6.  But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 12% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix at rate in question @ 12% p.a. on Ex.A 6   in question.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

18.    Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainants that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is un-dispute fact that the Opposite Parties did not pay the insured amount paid by the deceased husband of the 1^st Complainant and legal heirs of the complainants 2 to 4.   Naturally, that made have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award and compensation of 50,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.50,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

19.    Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative on our part to consider the costs of litigation.    The Complainants ought not have to approach this Forum, had his claim for payment of the insured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the 2^nd Opposite Party within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

20.    In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainants are entitled to receive the insured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- together with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from 1-9-2003 till the date of realization, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and also costs of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainants.

21.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the OPs 1 and 2 to pay the insured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six laksh only) with subsequent interest @12% p.a., from 1-9-2003 till the date of realization and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five hundred only) to the Complainants. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 30^th day of December, 2014.

 

   Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marke for the Complainants:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	27-08-2003	Police Complaint	Photostat copy
A-2	27-08-2010	FIR	Photostat copy
A-3	26-08-2003	Death Certificate of late Sri Anand Kumar	Photostat copy
A-4	27-08-2003	Post Mortem Certificate	Photostat copy
A-5	26-02-2008	Letter issued by the 2nd OP to the Complainants	Photostat copy
A-6	10-09-2013	Death claim intimation to 2nd OP by the 1st OP dated 10-09-2003	Photocopy
A-7		Legal Heir Certificate of the complainants	Photocopy

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B-1		Admission Record of the 1st OP	Photostat copy
B-2	10-09-2003	Death claim intimation to 2nd OP by the 1st OP	Photostat copy
B-3	18-03-2008	letter from 2nd OP to 1st OP dated	Photostat copy
B-4	14-08-2008	Letter to 2nd OP by the 1st OP dated 14-08-2008	Photostat copy
B-5	26-02-2008	letter from 1st OP by the 2nd OP dated	Photostat copy
B-6	27-08-2003	inquest report dated 27-08-2003	Photostat copy

 

     Sd/-                                                                                                    Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT