Date of Filing : 08.02.2011
Date of Order : 27.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 27th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 16 / 2011
Smt. Saraswathamma,
W/o. Late T.N. Ramaiah,
R/o: Sadali Village & Post,
Sidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
(By Smt. M.V. Rathnamma, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. Public Relation Officer,
M/s. The Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt. Ltd.,
Administration Office,
40-1-21/3, Surya Towers, 1st Floor,
M.G. Road, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh.
2. M/s. Agri Gold Farm Estate India Pvt. Ltd.,
Near State Bank of Mysore, APMC Road,
Chikkaballapur.
3. Sri. S.C. Nagaraj (Agent),
S/o. Basappa, Aged about 52 years,
KSRTC Retd. Conductor,
Sadali Village & Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District.
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. P.S. Nagarajan, Adv. for Ops 1 & 2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking direction to OPs to pay to Complainant Rs.25,000/- are necessary:
Sri. T.N. Ramanath, husband of the Complainant had opened daily Pigmy Account on 13.02.2009 in SID/8717123 of Rs.20/- daily with OP2 nominating the Complainant, his wife. Husband of the Complainant died on 26.04.2009. Under the Policy Complainant is entitled to Rs.25,000/-. Complainant sent application through OP1 to OP4 on 25.07.2009. As no amount is received, notice was issued on 19.11.2010 for which an untenable reply was given, hence the Complaint.
2. In this case, Ops 3 & 4 though served remained absent throughout the proceedings. In brief version of the Ops 1 & 2 are:-
The deceased T.N. Ramanath made application to OP2 for purchase of unit of land on Swift installment under Project A312 and this OP accepted the Application under Account by way of agreement of sale and also made MOU and the Complainant is a nominee. OP1 is the employee of OP2. These Ops are only inter-meddler between OP4 and the Complainant. This OPs have got tie-up with OP4. Accordingly, every unit holder is one of the members of the Group Insurance for which amount is paid by OP2. The deceased died in an accident and Application is made to OP2 claiming insurance amount which has been forwarded to OP2. OP4 requested to send final investigation report, RFSL report, case diary, but the Complainant did not submit the report. Hence it was treated as
“no claim” on 08.04.2010.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their affidavit. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as under:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
(B) What Order
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Point Nos. A & B – Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the husband of the Complainant by name T.N. Ramanath was a member of OP2 and accordingly there was a Group Insurance and in case member of Group Insurance dies, OP4 has to pay Rs.25,000/- during the subsistence of the Group Insurance. It is also an undisputed fact that deceased husband of the Complainant died during subsistence of the Group Insurance. It is also an admitted fact that Complainant being a nominee and the legal heir claimed amount with all necessary document. But, claim was closed by OP4 which is nothing but deficiency in service. The Complainant had produced Death Certificate issued by the Government, Cause of Death Certificate & Postmortem Report issued by the Victoria Hospital, FIR, Acknowledgement of receipt of dead body, copy of the complaint, claim form, notice copy and the notice reply. All these things clearly establish that the deceased was husband of the Complainant and the Complainant was the nominee of the deceased and the deceased died in an accident. As per the policy terms, Complainant is entitled to the amount. Hence, closing the file as “no claim” is nothing but deficiency in service. Why final investigation report is required? Why RFSL report is required? Why case diary is required? Complainant is illiterate widow. How can she expect to submit all these things. If any of the Ops wanted these reports, they could have gone to the concerned Police Department and obtained copies of the documents, but that has not been done. Instead, Ops have denied and repudiated the claim. Hence, it is illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we hold the points accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP4 is directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from 26.04.2009 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OP4 is also directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.
4. OP4 is directed to send the amount ordered at (2) & (3) above to the Complainant by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
7. Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
