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

F.A.  866/2008 against C.C. 14/2007,  Dist. Forum, Karimnagar   

Between:

Andhra Bank

Rep. by its Manager

Godavarikani Branch

Godavarikani

Karimnagar Dist. .                                      ***                           Appellant/

            O.P. No. 1         

                                                                    And

1. Koilala Shankaramma, W/o. Late Lingaiah

Age: 34 years

2.  Koilala Vijaya, D/o. Late Lingaiah

Age: 14 years

3. Koilala Suresh, S/o. Late Lingaiah

Age: 11 years

4. Koilala Rajesh, S/o. Late Lingaiah

Age: 9 years, R2 to R4 are minors

rep. by their Mother & guardian R1.

5. Koilala Mallamma, W/o. Late Lachulu

Age: 70 years, All are R/o. Thilaknagar

Godavarikani, Karimnagar Dist.                 ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Complainants.

6.   The National Insurance Company Ltd.

Rep. by its  Manager

Divisional Office, P.B. No. 236

Jhaveri Mansion, Bank Street, Koti

Hyderabad-500 001.                                   ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                O.P. No. 2

Counsel for the  Appellant:                         M/s.  A. Manjunath

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s. P. Vinodkumar (R1 to R5)

                                                                   M/s.  S. Agastya Sarma (R6)

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

&

                                 SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN

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

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by  Op1  Andhra Bank  against the order of the Dist. Forum  directing it to pay Rs. 1 lakh together with interest along  Op2 insurance company.

2)                The case of the complainants in brief is that  complainant No. 1 is the wife, complainant No. 2 is the daughter, complainant Nos. 3 & 4 are sons and complainant No. 6  is the mother of deceased  Koilala Lingaiah.  He   was an account-holder of  Abhaya Gold  Scheme with appellant bank  wherein  the account holders are covered under   Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy  for a sum of Rs 1 lakh issued by Op2 insurance company.    While so he along with his son  Suresh  went to Peddapalli to  attend a function on 30.6.2003.    At 3.00 p.m. they went to an agricultural well to swim and all of a sudden   drowned in the well water.    One  Ravamallu rescued  Suresh, however he could not rescue  Lingaiah.  On report the police registered a case in Crime No. 138/2003  u/s 174 of  Cr.P.C.   and filed charge sheet before the  Executive Magistrate  alleging that he died accidentally and there was no foul play.   By virtue of terms of the policy the complainants were entitled to the amount and thereupon a legal notice was issued  for which the bank gave reply stating that  it was not an accidental death.   Assailing the repudiation they filed the complaint impleading both the appellant bank and the insurance company  claiming  Rs. 1 lakh together with interest  @ 18% p.a., besides  compensation and costs. 

3)                 The appellant bank resisted the case.   However, it admitted  that the deceased was an account holder  under Abhaya Gold Scheme  and in the event of his death his life was covered by a policy for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh.    Immediately  on  receipt of  death of the account-holder  it had informed the insurance company to settle the claim  by its letter  Dt. 1. 10. 2003.    Later the insurance company informed that the claim was repudiated.  In fact it was only a facilitator/mediator between  the account-holder and the insurance company.  It had no role in settling the claim and no liability could be fastened against it.  There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                 The insurance company equally resisted the case.  While admitting that there was an insurance policy,    it alleged that  there was no privity of contract between it and the complainants.     It admitted that  under the scheme  the accountholders of  Abhaya Gold Scheme  are  covered by a policy for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh.    It  alleged that  on receipt of claim when  they had their own doubts regarding the death of the deceased they got the matter investigated through investigator  Sri M. Rajendra Kumar  who after investigation submitted  his report mentioning that the death was not accidental.    When the FIR discloses that the deceased could swim and went to impart swimming to his son, he could not have drowned  accidentally.    The police did not investigate properly and they colluded with the complainants.    Since the death was not accidental they  repudiated the claim.    At any rate, the Dist. Forum  had no jurisdiction.   It is the civil court that could redress their grievance  and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

5)                 The complainants in proof of their case filed the affidavit evidence of complainant No. 1 and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked while the opposite parties filed  Exs. B1 to B8. 

6)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that death of the deceased was accidental and in the light of terms of the policy  it directed both opposite parties to pay Rs. 1 lakh together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of realization.

7)                 Aggrieved by the said decision the bank preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.   It ought to have seen that it was only a facilitator/mediator.  The moment it had received the claim it had forwarded the same to the insurance company which had to settle the claim.  No liability could be fastened against it being a facilitator/mediator under the terms of the policy, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.

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

9)                It is an undisputed fact the complainants are legal heirs of deceased Koilala Lingaiah who had account with appellant bank evidenced under Ex. A5.    He being an account holder entitled to coverage of insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh in case of death by accident  vide terms of the policy Exs. B1 & B2.    It is also not in dispute that the deceased drowned  on 30.6.2003  in an agricultural well when  he took his son to give training  in swimming.  On report the police registered a case in Crime No. 138/2003  u/s 174 of  Cr.P.C evidenced under Ex. A1 FIR  followed by  inquest Ex. A2 and .   post-mortem examination  Ex. A4.    The  police after thorough enquiry  opined that the death was accidental vide its final report Ex. A3.    When the complainants informed the said fact to the appellant bank it had forwarded the claim to the insurance company, basing on which  it had appointed an investigator  Sri M. Rajendra Kumar.  He investigated and gave report   Ex. B3 stating that the death was  suspicious and that it could not have been accidental. 

10)              The insurance company in fact preferred an appeal  against the said order in F.A. No. 870/2007  and this Commission by order dt. 30.7.2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the award passed by the Dist. Forum, against which  the insurance company preferred R.P. No. 2157/2008 before the National Commission.  By order dt. 29.1.2010 it  opined that death of the deceased  could not have been accidental.    Therefore the revision was  allowed and the order of compensation granted against the insurance company was rejected. 

11)              It is not in dispute that the appellant bank is only a facilitator/mediator between the  assured on the one hand and the insurance company on the other hand  and when it had received  the claim, it had forwarded the same to the insurance company to settle the claim.  The only part that could be played by it is to forward the claim to the insurance company to get the claim settled.    We repeat that  it is only a facilitator  in this regard.    Since the bank had rightly forwarded the claim to the insurance company it cannot be said that it had committed any deficiency in service.    We may also state that when the very claim against the insurance company  is dismissed ultimately in R.P. No. 2157/2008  by  no stretch of imagination  the bank could be held liable by virtue of the terms of the policy.  If at all any amount has  to be  paid it was the insurance company that had to pay.    The bank cannot be fastened with  liability  to pay the said amount. 

12)              In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently  the complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.   05. 10. 2010

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”