Date of Filing : 25.08.2011
Date of Order : 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 20th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 191 / 2011
Smt. Indramma,
W/o. Late Veeraswamy.G.
Aged about 39 years,
R/at: Gundamnatha Village,
Chaldiganahalli Post,
Srinivasapur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. V. Sridhar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
#105A/107-A, Cears Plaza,
#136, Residency Road,
Bangalore – 560 025.
Vide Policy No. 115315821 dtd. 14.02.2009
2. The Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Kolar Branch,
Aralepete,
Kolar – 563 101.
Vide S.B. A/c. No. 15012200058690
(By Sri. J.R. Jagadish, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. K.V. Shankarappa, Adv. for OP2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.1,25,000/- are necessary:
The husband of the Complainant Veeraswamy.G. was the S.B. Account holder in the Bank of OP2 and Master Policy Insurance holder from OP1 through OP2 for the period from 14.02.2009 to 14.02.2010 and the sum assured was Rs.1,25,000/- and the insurance premium was paid. The husband of the Complainant died on 15.04.2010 leaving behind him the Complainant and the children. Immediately after the death, she approached OP1 along with documents and requested for payment of insurance amount. As it was not complied with, she issued notice on 18.02.2010. OP1 sent a Cheque for Rs.3,514/- on 21.05.2011 and rest of the claim has been rejected by the OP stating that the premium which was to be paid from the S.B. Account from the OP2 and it is not paid. It is the responsibility of the OP1 and not the Complainant. There was sufficient amount in the S.B. Account of the deceased.
In brief the version of OP1 are:-
2(a). Complainant is a totally stranger and not the wife of the deceased who has insured his life. The insurance of the deceased and the S.B. account of the deceased are admitted. The premium amount is not paid regularly to the Policy.
In brief the version of OP2 are:-
2(b). Insurance of the deceased with the OP is admitted. Nominee under the Policy is somebody else and not the Complainant. Complainant is not a wife of the deceased. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. Parties have filed their respective affidavits. Arguments were heard. At the time of hearing the arguments of OP, Complainant was absent.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as under:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Affirmative
(2) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Point Nos. A & B – Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits & documents on record, it is an admitted fact that one Veeraswamy.G. had S.B. Account with OP No. 1 and he has paid the insurance premium through OP2 and the premium was transferred from S.B. Account of the deceased and in the S.B. Account there was sufficient funds. It was agreed that insurance premium has to be paid by OP1 to OP2. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased Veeraswamy died on 14.04.2010. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant claimed policy amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. Ops are denying the claim stating that the nominee under the Policy is somebody else and the Complainant is not the wife of the deceased.
7. Complainant has produced heirship certificate issued by the Government i.e., Tahsildar, Revenue Department dtd. 01.06.2010. This certificate clearly goes to show that Smt. Indramma i.e., the Complainant is the wife of the deceased and Naresh Babu & Chandana are the children of the deceased. The said certificate is not challenged or denied by the Ops. The Revenue Authorities on investigation have clearly held that the Complainant is the wife of the deceased and other 2 persons named in the Certificate are the children of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased. Hence, this contention of the Ops are untenable contention raised for the purpose of this case.
8. In this case there are 3 Class one heirs. Each are entitled to 1/3 share in the Policy amount. If the OP1 had not paid the premium, it is the responsibility of OP1 for which Complainant cannot be blamed. Under these circumstances, denying claim of the Complainant is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. Merely there is some other nominee, it does not mean that the Complainant is not wife and other two persons are not the children of the deceased. Nominee receives the money only on behalf of the heirs of the deceased and has to distribute the amount to the heirs. Here the nominee has not claimed anything from the Ops. The Ops have not conducted any investigation to say that the Complainant is not the wife nor deceased had left any children. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Complainant i.e., Smt. Indramma and children i.e., Naresh Babu & Chandana are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the Policy amount.
3. Ops shall pay 1/3rd of Policy amount in full to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order.
4. Ops shall keep 1/3rd of the Policy amount in the name of Naresh Babu and remaining 1/3rd of the Policy amount in the name of Chandana under the guardianship of the Complainant in any nationalized / scheduled Bank co-extensive with their majority.
5. Complainant is entitled to quarterly periodical interest on the said secured FD for the benefit of her children.
6. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
7. Ops shall comply with the order as stated above within the time stated above and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 75 days.
8. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
9. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th day of March 2012.)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
