BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Wednesday the 08th day of December, 2010
C.C.No 69/10
Between:
T.Ankalamma alias T.Boya Ankalamma, W/o. Boya Thimmannagari Chinna Maddileti,
R/o H.No.1/82, Paramotur village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal , Kurnool District-518 513.
…..…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Parmatur Formers Co-Operative Society,Rep.by its Managing Director,
D.No. Q77, Santha Jutur Village, Bandi Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District-518513.
2. The K.D.C.C.Bank, rep its Branch Manager,
D.No. 32-32, Velgode village and Mandal, Kurnool District-518 533.
3. The Divisional Manager,New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
H.D.C.T. Complex, D.No.40-526-12,Five-Road Circle,Kurnool Town-518 004.
….…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. V. Venkateswara Reddy , Advocate, for complainant, and opposite parties 1 and 2 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. P . Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 69/10
- This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying
- to direct the Ops to pay the death claim of Rs.50,000/- to
the complainant .
- to direct the OPs to pay future interest at 24% p.a from the
date of the death till the payment.
- direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards
mental agony to the complainant for non payment of death claim in time.
- to direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the
complainant towards costs of the proceedings.
- to grant such other relief as the Hon’ble forum may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the wife of late Boya Chinna Maddileti . Late Boya Chinna Maddileti was member of PACS . His general number is 4857. The 2nd OP issued Janatha Accidental Policy of Kissan Credit Card to the deceased Chinna Maddileti. The kisan credit card of the deceased commenced from 29-09-2000. The 2nd OP paid the premium to the 3rd OP regularly. The life risk is Rs.50,000/- . The complainant is the nominee in the said policy. On 17-03-2007 the husband of the complainant had fallen in KC canal from bridge accidentally and died . The complainant gave report to Bandi Atmakur P.S and police registered a case in Cr.No.45/07 U/sec. 174 Cr.PC
Subsequently OP.No.2 submitted claim form to OP.No.3. As OP.No.3 did not settle claim , the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04-05-2009 to OP.No.3. The delay in settling the claim amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.3 . Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. OP.No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. As OP.No.2 did not submit all the relevant records to OP.No.3 for settlement of the case in time , OP.No.3 repudiated the claim of the complainant on 24-04-2008 The repudiation of the claim was informed to OP.No.2. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 04-05-2009 with an ulterior motive knowing that the claim was repudiated on 24-04-2008 OP.No.3 sent a reply for the notice got issued by the complainant. The complainant suppressed the material facts and filed the complaint that the deceased died in suspicious circumstances. The complainant colluded with the police and invented false story that the death of the deceased was accidental . The claim of he complainant is bared by time. The deceased died under the influence of intoxication . Therefore the OP.No.3 is not liable to pay sum assured to the complainant. OP.No.3 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant and the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party No. 3 Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.3 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.3 ?
(ii) whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
(iii) whether the complainant is bared by time?
(iv) To what relief?
7. Point No.1 & 2: It is the case of the complainant that her husband was a member in OP.No.1 society and that the OP.No.3 issued Janatha Personal Accident Policy to the kisan credit card holders of branches of OP.No.2. To show that the husband of the complainant was a member in OP.No.1 society , the complainant filed Ex.A1 .As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the deceased was the member of co-operative society , velugodu . Admittedly OP.No.3 issued Ex.B1 personal accident insurance policy to the kisan credit card holders of various PACS in KDCC.
8. It is the case of the complainant that her husband who was the member in OP.No.1 society died on 17-03-2007 by falling in K.C canal accidentally. The complainant in her sworn affidavit clearly stated that her husband had falling in KC canal accidentally on 17-03-2007 and died. The complainant gave a report to the police. The police registered a case in Cr.No.45/07 of B.Atmakur. Ex.A5 is the copy of the FIR . As seen from Ex.A5 it is very clear that the husband of the complainant died on 17-03-2007 by falling into K.C.Canal from the bridge. It is the contention of OP.No.3 that there is no direct evidence to come to the conclusion that the husband of the complainant fell accidentally into K.C.Canal. It is not the case of the OP.No.3 that the husband of the complainant was suffering from decease prior to his death. It is mentioned in Ex.A5 FIR that the dead body of the husband of the complainant was found in K.C.Canal. In the circumstances it must be presumed that the husband of the complainant died by falling into K.C.Canal accidentally. It is also the case of the complainant that the deceased was under the influence of intoxication at the time of his death and that the OP.No.3 is not liable to pay any amount. No documentary evidence is placed by the OP.No.3 that the deceased was under the influence of intoxication at the time of his death.
9. Admittedly OP did not pay the assured amount to the complainant. Ex.B2 is the repudiation letter dated 24-04-2008. As seen from Ex.B2 it is very clear that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as OP.No.2 did not comply the objections raised by OP.No.3. It is also stated that OP.No.2 gave a consent to OP.No.3 to withdraw the claim. It is not the case of the complainant that she gave consent to OP.No.3 for withdrawal of her claim. Merely because OP.No.2 did not submit the required papers , OP.No.3 cannot repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is the complainant who is the beneficiary under the policy. It is also mentioned in Ex.B2 repudiation letter that the insured died naturally. As seen from Ex.A5 it is very clear that the deceased died accidentally by falling into the K.C. Canal. The contention of the OP.No.3 that the insured died naturally is not supported by any document. The repudiation of the claim by OP.No.3 is not justified . The complainant is the nominee under the policy and she is entitled to the assured amount . There was deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.3. The complainant is entitled to the assured sum of Rs.50,000/- with subsequent interest .
10 Point No3: It is the case of the OP.No.3 that the death of the deceased took place on 17-03-2007 , that the complaint is not filed within two years thereafter and that the complaint is bared by time. The complainant filed the present complaint on 19-03-2010 .According to the OP.No.3 the claim of the complainant was repudiated on 24-04-2008 . The complaint is filed within two years from the date of the repudiation of the claim by OP.No.3. Hence the contention of the OP.No.3 that the claim is bared by time cannot be accepted.
11 .Point No.4:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP.No.3 to pay assured sum of Rs.50,000/- with subsequent interest at 9% p.a from the date of the complaint i.,e 19-03-2010 till the date of realization along with costs of Rs.500/-. The complaint against OP.No.1 and 2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 08th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Co-Operative Kisan Credit Card-Cum- Pass Book No.1830 of Chinna Maddileti.
Ex.A2. Letter dt.13-04-2007 issued by OP3 to the OP2.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dt.04-05-2009.
Ex.A4. Postal acknowledgment card.
Ex.A5. Photo copy of FIR in Cr.45/2007 of Bandi Atmakur P.S.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Policy No.611500/47/06/43/00000488 along with terms and conditions.
Ex.B2. Repudiation letter dt.24-04-2008.
Ex.B3. Office copy of reply notice dt. 14-05-2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
