These complaints coming up before us for final hearing on 04-09-14 in the presence of Sri A.S.R.K. Reddy, advocate for complainant and of                             Sri M.V. Subba Rao, advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3, Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for opposite parties 4 and 5, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-    The complainants filed this complaint                      u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite parties 4 and 5 to pay 1/3^rd of the policy amounts amounting to Rs.15,83,334/- (Rs.47,50,000/- x 1/3) to the complainants and to direct the 2^nd opposite party to pay the death claim settlement of eight policies of the deceased with accrued bonus if any and further to pay Rs.20,000/- toward costs.

          The complainant filed another complaint vide CC No.32/2014 on behalf of her minor son P.D.V.S.R. Charantej Reddy as a complainant.   As the averments involved and relief sought in both the cases are one and the same, these CCs are being disposed off by a common order.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaints are these:

          The 1^st complainant’s husband Pamulapati Uma Maheswara Reddy died on 19-02-14 as intestate leaving behind son (2^nd complainant herein).                   The deceased is an LIC agent with code No.1017699 in the 4^th opposite party’s office and he was drawing approximately Rs.5,00,000/- p.a., as commission on policies.  While he was alive he took eight insurance policies for a sum of Rs.47,50,000/-.  The details of the policies are given below:

          The complainants and the deceased are Hindus and are governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956.   The complainants and the 2^nd opposite party i.e., the mother of the deceased are class-I heirs and they only are entitled to equal share in the above mentioned policies and commission.   The above nominees i.e., father, mother and sister/opposite parties 1 to 3 of the deceased knowing about the insured/deceased serious condition while he was in the hospital took away his policies, ‘c’ book of motor cycle, bank pass book and other documents from the house of the complainants with an intent to draw the entire amounts without giving complainants their legitimate share.   The complainants have no other income except the insurance amount. 

 The complainants got issued legal notice dated 24-02-14 through their counsel to the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties not to settle the claim and commission in favor of opposite parties 1 to 3.   The 4^th and 5^th opposite parties received the legal notice on 26-02-12 and 28-02-14 respectively and the 5^th opposite party only gave reply on 03-03-14 that they cannot withhold the amounts under the policies unless an appropriate prohibitory orders received from the competent court.   The complainants and the deceased’s mother are only entitled for the death benefits of deceased. The complainants have no other option except to approach this Hon’ble Forum seeking directions on the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties to distribute the said amount to the above mentioned class-I heirs.   Hence  the complaint.  

3. In brief the contents in the version of the opposite parties                     1 to 3 are as follows:

          The relations mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant are correct but the allegations are specifically denied by these opposite parties.   As this complaint has multiple aspects this Forum has no jurisdiction.   The policies referred to in the complaint are true, however in respect of policies 1,2,6 and 8 there is nominee and in respect of other policies assignment is made and those cannot be questioned by the complainant u/s 38 of Insurance Act, 1938.  The complainant knowingly suppressed the assignment of the policies.   The exparte interim orders passed in IA without seeing the merits and demerits of the matter resulted for statusquo and causes lot of inconvenience to the opposite parties who lost their son and brother.   The 4^th and 5^th opposite parties have tactfully given their reply and if they have given a proper reply in respect of policy’s nomination or assignment to the Hon’ble Forum, the subject matter would have been different.  

          The complainant never looked after her deceased husband while he was hospitalized and she went to her parental house along with her minor son i.e., to Modukuru, Chunduru Mandal, Guntur district but the complainant gave address as if she is residing at Nidamarru village in fact subsequent to ill-health of the deceased she left Nidamarru.  The complainant went to the extent of threatening the opposite parties 1 to 3 by using brutal force by her parental family and tortured and got registered a residential house site in favour of her son on the date of death of her husband.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 requested the complainant not to leave the house and stay with the old age persons 1 and 2 opposite parties since they cannot survive but the complainant put deaf ear.   Though the complainant is able to receive periodical commission in respect of the policies booked by the deceased to a tune of Rs.6,00,000/- per year knowing the fact of assignment of policies the complainant filed this present complaint to harass these opposite parties.   Therefore, the Hon’ble Forum may dismiss the complaint with costs.        

4.     The 5^th opposite party filed version and the 4^th opposite party adopted the same and its contents in brief are as follows:

          The relief sought by the complainant is of civil nature, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. The deceased Pamulapati.Umamaheswara Rao worked as our agent and had taken the following policies.

          The deceased has assigned the following policies in favour of the persons with relationships.  

          The deceased himself has assigned the above mentioned three policies in favour of his sister and father.  The complainant is not entitled to claim any amount over the above policies.   This opposite party will act as per the Hon’ble Forum’s directions subject to the admissibility of the claim, and conducting necessary investigations into the bonafides of the claim.   Under these circumstances, this opposite party humbly prays that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to              B-8 were marked on behalf of opposite parties 4 and 5.

6.    The points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

          1. Whether the complaint is maintainable under the purview of                                        Consumer Protection Act?                                                                                      2.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

          3. To what relief?

7.   POINT No.1:-    The A.P. State Commission set a side the order of District Forum that ,” ……………in any dispute between the nominees and legal heirs  only a civil court can adjudicate the matter and decide the shares”,     in a case with the same facts as in the present cc i.e.; in Kavuri Aparna and two others vs. Kavuri Sai Babu and three others in FA.No.362/2011 (decided on 14-08-12).   In view of that the Forum opines that this complaint comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and it is maintainable in this Forum.  

8.  POINT No.2:-      The complainant filed this complaint seeking 1/3 rd share in the policies of the deceased/insured .  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the deceased’s father, mother and sister.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 explained in their version that the nominee facility is present only in the policies mentioned in the complaint under Nos.672858118, 672882504, 673553135 and 671434186 and in respect of other policies assignment is made in favor of 3^rd and 1^st opposite parties  which is undisputed and cannot be questioned by the complainant as per section 39 of Insurance Act1938.

9.      The opposite parties 4 and 5 in their version listed out the policies taken by the insured as follows:

     As per the above details policies 1,3 and 8 are assigned, policies 2,4,5,6, and 7 are nominated.  

10.   On perusal of documents the Forum found that the narrations given by the opposite parties in their version deferred with the documents filed by them in respect of policy No.671445117 (Ex.B-7) for Rs.50,000/- of Tamma Madhavi sister of the insured and policy No.676346104 (Ex.B-5) for Rs.5,00,000/- of P. Uma Sirisha wife of the insured as nominee in their version.   Whereas Ex.B-7 policy No.671445117 was nominated to Tamma Madhavi.   The policy was nominated to Tamma Madhavi but not assigned.  Ex.B-5 policy was assigned to P. Uma Sirisha but not nominated.  The Forum required opposite parties to produce a document from the insurance company detailing the policies on the life of late P. Uma Maheswara Reddy the insured.   The opposite parties filed the details along with memo dated 30-09-14 which is as follows:

          As per the above details policy No.671445117 was nominated to Tamma Madhavi the insured’s sister and policy No.676346104 was assigned to P. Uma Sirisha the wife of the insured.

 11.  Section 38 of Insurance Act deals with the rights of transferee/assignee.   Section 39 deals with rights of nominee.   Section 39 of the Act reveals that, a transfer or assignment made in accordance with section 38 shall automatically cancel the nomination.

12.     The insured died intestate leaving behind the complainants as legal heirs.   The complainants (in CC.Nos.31 and 32 of 2014) and the 2^nd opposite

party i.e., the mother of the insured are only class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act as rightly alleged by the complainants and as such they are entitled to 1/3 share each in the following nominated policies:    

           The insured assigned his wife Uma Sirisha i.e., 1^st complainant herein in Policy No.676346104 for Rs.5,00,000/-and the 1^st complainant is alone having right on this policy. 

13.   The learned counsel for the complainant relied upon a Supreme Court Judgment reported in 1996 (3) CPJ 19 (SC) between Subhangi Shivaji Rao Ghatge vs. LIC of India which held as follows:

          “Though the brother of the deceased had laid the claim, he is not a Class-I heir under schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 though mother is a class-I heir.   Therefore, mother may claim a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law.   The deceased left behind him two children and his widow.   Therefore they are entitled on 3/4^th share while the mother may claim 1/4^th share of the amount”.  

          Therefore in view of the above discussion, the Forum comes to a considered opinion that the complainants are entitled to 1/3^rd share of nominated policies and the 1^st complainant P. Uma Sirisha is alone entitled to the assigned policy bearing No. 676346104 and answered this point accordingly.

14.   POINT No.3:-   As the complainants who is the wife and child of the insured and 2^nd opposite party who is the mother of the insured are the class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 they are entitled for the 1/3^rd share of the insured amount covered under nominated policies.    Since the policy no.676346104 was already assigned to the 1^st complainant she alone is entitled to that policy amount.

15.   The opposite parties have rightly contended that they cannot withhold the policies unless an appropriate prohibitory order is received from the competent court.   In view of their appropriate contention the Forum cannot direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants. Therefore the complainants are not entitled to any compensation from the opposite parties 4 and 5.      

16.    In the result the complaints are allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 4 and 5 are directed to pay 1/3^rd share of the policy amounts pertaining to policy Nos.(1) 671434186 for Rs.50,000/- (2)673553135 for Rs.50,000/-; (3) 672858118 for Rs.1,00,000/- (4) 672882504 for Rs.5,00,000/- and 5)671445117 for Rs.50,000/-  to each of the complainants.
2. The claim of the complainants in respect of the policies bearing          Nos.1)676287309 for Rs.25,00,000/- and 2) 672910573 for Rs.10,00,000/- is dismissed.
3. The opposite parties 4 and 5 are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of assigned policy bearing No.676346104 to the                          1^st complainant.
4. The share of the minor son of the insured i.e., 2^nd complainant          herein shall be kept in fixed deposit till he attains majority under        the guardianship of the 1^st complainant.  
5. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above amounts ordered in point No.1 and 2 shall carry interest @9% p.a.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 15th day of October, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:   

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.