Date of filing:30.1.2014
Date of Disposal:23.6.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
MONDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2014.
C.C.No.37 OF 2014
Between :
Smt Muvvala (Konijeti) Veena Vasavi, W/o Late M.Phani Kumar, D.No.4-2-35, Opp:2nd Lane, S.N.P. Agraharam, Bapatla, Guntur District.
….. Complainant.
And
1. Smt Muvvala Savithri, W/o Balagangadhar Tilak, D.No.25-10-773, Keshavula Nagar, Beside Church, Vedayapalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh – 524 004.
2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Vuyyuru Branch, Krishna District.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 10.6.2014 in the presence of Smt M.Raja Kumari, Counsel for complainant and Sri K.V.V.Parameswara Rao, Counsel for opposite party No.1 and Sri D.V.S.Lokeswara Rao, Counsel for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant married one M.Phani Kumar, son of the 1st opposite party. The said Phani Kumar went to Bangalore on 25.5.2013 on his official work and while he is returning from Bangalore in Volvo Bus which involved in Ghastly accident at Palem Village at Mehaboob Nagar District on 29.10.2013 and he died on the spot in the said accident. During his life time he obtained three insurance policies from the 2nd opposite party bearing Nos. (1)676779680 for Rs.2,00,000/- (2) 676788280 for Rs.3,00,000/- and (3) 673185934 for Rs.30,000/- and nominated his mother i.e., the 1st opposite party herein as nominee under the said three policies. The complainant and the 1st opposite party being class-I legal heirs of the insured are entitled to share the insurance amount equally. While so the 1st opposite party is making efforts to claim entire amount taking advantage of her position as nominee under the policies. On knowing the said fact the complainant addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party and their officials claiming insured amount. But the 2nd opposite party refused to entertain her claim contending that the 1st opposite party is the nominee under the policies. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are ignoring the claim of the complainant even though she is a class-I heir of her deceased husband which amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,30,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.10,60,000/- being equal share.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed vakalaths but the 2nd opposite party did not contest the matter. The 1st opposite party filed its version.
The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. In the insurance policies made by the 1st opposite party son Muvvala Phani Kumar the nomination was made 1st opposite party. Hence as per law the 1st opposite party is only entitled to receive entire insurance amount made with the 2nd opposite party by her son. The complainant can claim her share after receiving the same by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party only. That the complainant gave a letter to the Branch Manager, LIC Vuyyuru claiming entire amount due to death of Phani Kumar. The 2nd opposite party refused to pay the same to the complainant. As per law the 1st opposite party is only entitled to receive the same. As per law the 1st opposite party and her husband are class-I heirs along with the complainant. The complainant suppressed the said fact and received Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the private tour operators and also receive another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Government of Andhra Pradesh suppressing the facts of that the 1st opposite party and her husband are also entitled to equal share in the said two amounts. Therefore the 1st opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant she gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 and on behalf of the opposite parties Smt M.Savithri, mother of the deceased gave her affidavit and no document is marked.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties
towards the complainant in not accepting the claim of the complainant or not?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant is the wife of the deceased M.Phani Kumar under Ex.A.4 dated 29.6.2013 issued by registrar of marriage Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh. The said Phani Kumar went to Bangalore on 25.5.2013 on his official work and while he was returning from Bangalore in Volvo bus, the said bus involved in ghastly accident at Palem Village at Mehaboob Nagar District on 29.10.2013 and he died on the spot in the said accident. Ex.A.5 death certificate issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, Medical and Health Department evidence the same. During his life time the deceased Phani Kumar obtained three insurance policies for Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/-before his marriage and he nominated his mother i.e., the 1st opposite party as his nominee in the said three policies. Ex.A.1 toEx.A.3 the status reports of the policies evidence the same. The complainant says that she and the 1st opposite party being Class-I heirs of the insured are entitled to share the insurance amount equally. But the 1st opposite party is making effort to claim entire amount as a nominee in the said policies. On knowing the said fact the complainant addressed a letter Ex.A.9 to the 2nd opposite party claiming the insured amount. The 2nd opposite party received the same and refused to entertain her claim.
7. The 1st opposite party says that she is the nominee in the said three policies obtained by her son at his life time. So that she is only entitled to get the insured amount from the 2nd opposite party. After getting the insured amount by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party the complainant can claim for her share. The 1st opposite party and her husband are class-I heirs along with the complainant to the insured.
8. The 1st opposite party is admittedly the nominee of the deceased policy holder. The insurance company will have to pay the amount to nominee normally. The nominee is only entitled to receive the benefit under Section 39 of the Insurance Act 1938. In Sarbati Devi Vs. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346 the Apex Court has observed that nomination made under Section 39 of Insurance Act would only indicate the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on the payment of which the insurer gets the valid discharge of its liability under the policy and that the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with law of succession governing them and nomination would not alter the course of succession under the law. So the wife’s right to her share as legal heir is not affected by the nomination made by the policy holder in favour of his mother the 1st opposite party. Therefore the complainant as well as the 1st opposite party are entitled to the amount payable under the policies. The 1st opposite party is entitled to receive the amount on behalf of the legal heirs. It appears that the complainant and the 1st opposite party are not on cordial terms. Then payment to the 1st opposite party may lead to further legal action for share by the complainant. With a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings this Forum may direct the insurance company to pay the benefit equally to both the complainant and the 1st opposite party.
9. The complainant claimed for ½ share of the insured amount Rs.10,60,000/- for an amount of Rs.5,30,000/-. The insured obtained policies for Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/- + Rs.30,000/- total comes to Rs.5,30,000/-. The complainant claimed for accidental benefit of Rs.5,30,000/- along with insured amount under the said policies. But there is no documentary evidence to show that the said policies were covered accidental benefit or not. Either the complainant or the 2nd opposite party did not file the insurance policies. In the absence of the terms of policy it is not known if the legal heirs of the deceased policy holder are also entitled to accidental benefit which is equal to the life insured amount. The 2nd opposite party has not settled the claim. The claim appears to be still pending with the 2nd opposite party. Then it would be better to direct the 2nd opposite party insurance company to decide the claim and to give benefit equally to the complainant as well as the 1st opposite party as per the terms of the policy.
POINT No.3:-
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the 2nd opposite party is directed to decide the claim relating to insurance amount payable on the death of deceased Muvvala Phani Kumar in a road accident and to pay the benefits equally to the complainant as well as the 1st opposite party within one month from the date of this order. There is no order as to costs. The complaint for rest of the claims is dismissed.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 23rd day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Smt Muvvala (Konijeti) Veena Vasavi D.W.1 Smt M.Savathri,
Complainant 1st opposite party
(by affidavit) (by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 . . Photocopy of Status Report of Policy No.676779680.
Ex.A.2 . . Photocopy of Status Report of Policy No.673185934.
Ex.A.3 . . Photocopy of Status Report of Policy No676788280
Ex.A.4 29.06.2013 Photocopy of Certificate of Marriage.
Ex.A.5 05.11.2013 Photocopies of Death certificate along with complaint
made by G.Buchanna to S.I. of Police, kothakota.
Ex.A.6 30.10.2013 Photocopy of First Information Report.
Ex.A.7 . . Photocopy of report of post mortem examination.
Ex.a.8 30.10.2013 Photocopy of Post mortem form.
Ex.A.9 . . Photocopy of letter from complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
For the opposite parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT
