Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest from 18-04-12 and for costs.

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

The complainant is wife of one Malle Koteswara Rao who worked as a lorry cleaner.  During his life time, the said Koteswara Rao obtained General Insurance Policy from the opposite parties under policy No.1110302914000005 on 18-04-12 and the said policy covered the risk for Rs.1,00,000/-.  The said Koteswara Rao died in a road accident on 26-02-13.  The complainant made a representation to              1^st opposite party for settlement of claim by submitting all the relevant documents.  As the opposite parties did not settle her claim, the complainant issued notice on 25-03-13 to the opposite parties.  The           1^st opposite party refused to receive the notice while the                        2^nd opposite party though received kept quite.  The complainant being nominee and legal heir of the said Koteswara Rao is entitled to claim the insured amount.   Not settling the claim by the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.       

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

The opposite parties issued the policy in question in favour of the deceased Malle Koteswara Rao on 18-04-12 and it covered death risk for Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties did not receive death intimation of the insured, FIR or death certificate or inquest panchanama.  In the absence of death intimation, the opposite parties could not settle the claim.  The opposite parties even now are intended to process the claim if the petitioner submits claim form.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service. The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits and written arguments.                                        .   

5. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of complainant.                             No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

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

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?

7.  POINT No.1:-   Ex.A-1 insurance policy revealed that the opposite parties on 18-04-12 issued policy under Group Personal Accident Scheme in favour of M. Koteswara Rao and it covered the risk for Rs.1,00,000/-.   Ex.A-1 further revealed that the insured nominated his wife Narayanamma as nominee.   Ex.A-2 revealed that the SHO, Wadapalli PS of Nalgonda district registered a crime as FIR No.45 of 2013 u/ss 304 (A) and 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP04V 2143 on the report given by one Lingireddy Kondal Reddy.  The SHO, Wadapalli PS conducted inquest on the corps of one Malle Koteswara Rao on 27-02-13 and also got conducted post mortem in the area hospital of Miryalaguda as seen from Ex.A-3. 

8.     Ex.A-4 is copy of death certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Bothalapalem Grama Panchayat which revealed that Malle Koteswara Rao s/o Amaralingam died on 26-02-13.  The complainant got issued notice to the opposite parties on 25-03-13 as seen from Ex.A-5.   Ex.A-6 is the returned postal cover addressed to the 2^nd opposite party.   Under Ex.A-6 the 2^nd opposite party required the complainant to contact its Guntur branch along with all relevant documents to register claim.  

9.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant did not submit claim form along with relevant documents to process the claim.  The burden is on the complainant to prove that she submitted claim forms to the 1^st opposite party, as a negative aspect cannot be proved by adducing positive evidence.  In Ex.A-4 notice the complainant mentioned the following:

                    “Our client made a representation No.1 of you to settle                      claim by submitting all relevant documents but you are                           postponing the same from one date to other”.

        To prove the said contention the complainant did not file any acknowledgment of the 1^st opposite party that she submitted claim form along with relevant documents.   Either the complaint or Ex.A-4 did not disclose when the complainant submitted claim forms along with relevant documents to the 1^st opposite party.   While registering the complaint the registry took the following objection among other objections:

“When the complainant has submitted the claim form along with the relevant documents to the 1^st opposite party.”

 For the said objection the complainant endorsed as follows:

                ‘Complainant submitted claim forms to the 1^st opposite                      party but date was not remembered.   No endorsement                 was given by the 1^st opposite party regarding filing of claim                petition’.

10.   The complainant failed to file any proof to show that she submitted claim forms along with relevant documents.  In the absence of any written acknowledgment from the 1^st opposite party, it cannot be said that the complainant submitted relevant documents to the                1^st opposite party for settling claim.  Under those circumstances,                      it cannot be said that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

11.  POINT No.2:-   The opposite parties in para 7 of their version categorically mentioned that they will process complainant’s claim even now if the complainant submits claim form.   In view of the said categorical admission made by the opposite parties, disposing off this complaint with certain directions will meet ends of justice rather than dismissing it.  

1. The complainant is directed to submit claim form along with relevant documents to the 1^st opposite party under acknowledgment within a month from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The opposite parties are directed to process the claim of the complainant within two months thereafter after receipt of claim form along with relevant documents from the complainant.  
3. Each party is directed to bear their costs.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 26^th day of February, 2014.

Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX                             Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:    NIL 

                                                                                                   Sd/-XXX

        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.