This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                        01-03-11 in the presence of Sri P. Raja Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri S.A. Khadar, advocate for opposite party and after hearing both sides upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the insured amount, Rs.40,900/- being the accrued interest from 08-08-07 to              16-11-09, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.9,100/- towards legal expenses.

1. In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        One Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao is the husband of the complainant.   During his lifetime the said Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao was a member in Rythu Samraksha Savings Scheme in Andhra Bank Farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Dhullipalla vide account No.113.   The account holders under the said scheme were covered by group personal accident insurance of the opposite party.  On 08-08-07 the said Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao @ Sudheer while going to his field on his bicycle met with an accident and died on the same day.  The SHO., Muppalla PS registered the said accident as Cr.No.43/2007 U/S 174 Cr.P.C.   The SHO, Muppalla PS investigated and gave final report stating that the death was due to accident.   On 13-03-09 the complainant got issued notice to the opposite party.   On 20-10-09 the opposite parties repudiated the claim alleging the cause of death was not due to accident.   The complainant and other legal heirs suffered mental agony due to the above attitude of the opposite party.

3.     The contention of the opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant failed to implead Andhra Bank farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Dhulipala to the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground.    The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties to the complaint.    The deceased died not due to fall from the cycle but due to some other reasons best known to the Andhra Bank farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Dhulipala.   The Secretary of the said society is creating some stories to come under the coverage of this policy for claiming compensation in order to get a percentage profit from that amount.   The deceased  Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao left Thurakapalem village of Muppalla mandal in the year 1999 and his family was living at Ramireddypeta, Narasaraopet by running a cycle shop at Palnadu centre under the name and style of S.L. Cycle shop.   The deceased died on 07-08-07 due to heart attack at his house at Ramireddy peta in Narasaraopet.   The deceased opened an account in Andhra Bank, Narasaraopet having a house hold card at Thurakapalem village.   The opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim and as such there was no deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-10 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of complainant and opposite party were marked respectively.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of proper parties?
2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
3. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.2:-    Ex.B-2 dated 20-10-09 revealed that the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground “cause of death is not by an accicent”.   Ex.A-2 revealed one Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao resident of Thurakapalem village was a member of Rythu Samraksha Savings Bank Account in Andhra Bank farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Dhulipala.   The opposite party did not file any document to show that the deceased Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao was residing at Ramireddy peta by running a cycle shop in Narasaraopet.   Under those circumstances, the same cannot be believed.

7.     The date of the death of the deceased Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao is not in dispute.  The dispute is only regarding the cause of death.  In Ex.A-5 post mortem certificate the doctor found a short edged cut injury on the right temporal region of the head and opined the cause of death as sub araehnoid haemoerage of brain.   The post mortem certificate clearly revealed that the deceased died due to accident.   Therefore the contention of the opposite party that the deceased died due to heart attack cannot be believed and as such the repudiation by the opposite party under Ex.A-10 (Ex.B-1) in our considered opinion is not proper and it amounted to deficiency of service.   Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.     POINT No.1:-    The complainant mentioned that she is nominee of her husband (deceased) and at the same time the complaint also revealed that the deceased left some other legal heirs also.   Ex.A-8 notice revealed that the deceased Maddipatla Srinivasa Rao died leaving behind the complainant, a son and a daughter and mother.   It is not the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant is not the nominee of the deceased as seen from Ex.B-2.   A nominee can give valid discharge on behalf of other legal heirs also to the opposite party.   Under those circumstances, the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is bad for non joinder of proper parties is devoid of merit.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of complainant.

9.    POINT No.3:-    In view of the above findings, in the result, the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) together with interest @9% p.a., from                   12-03-09 (Ex.A-8) till the date of payment.
2. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only)  towards costs.
3. The opposite party should comply the above order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

          Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 11th day of  March, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:  

                                                                                              PRESIDENT