BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABADF.A.No.1267/2005 against C.D.No.109/2004 , Prakasam Dist Ongole. .
Between
Siddam Santhakumari,
W/o.late S.Vijaya Mohan Rao,
Aged about 46 years, Indian , Housewife,
R/o.Giddalur, Prakasam District,
Presently residing at G-2,
Durga Enclave, Currency Nagar
Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada,
Krishna District. ….Appellant/
Opp.party no.3
And
1.Siddam Atchamma, W/o.Balaiah,
Aged about 66 years
2. Siddam Varshita,
D/o.S.Vijaya Mohan Rao,
Hindu, Indian, aged about 7 years,
Both are R/o.Bandeladoddi Street,
Giddalur, Prakasam District. …. Respondents/
Complainants
3.The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Racherla Road,
Giddalur, Prakasam District.
4. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Nellore. … Respondents/
Opp.parties 1 & 2
..
Counsel for the appellant : M/s.V.Gowrisankara Rao
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.Sreenivas- R3 & R4
CORAM :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT. M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opp.party no.3 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to set aside the order of the District Forum in C.D.No.109/2004 on the file of Dist. Forum , Prakasam Dist. Ongole. Dt.31.8.2005
The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the complainants before District Forum. They filed complaint to direct the opp.parties to pay half of the matured amounts under the policies to the complainants each , to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service and to pay costs .
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The 1st complainant is the mother of late Vijaya Mohan Rao. The deceased married one Siddam Santha Kumari and another lady by name Siddam Prameela Devi. The 2nd complainant is the daughter of deceased through his second wife Prameela Devi . The said Vijaya Mohan Rao during his life time obtained several insurance policies from the 1st opposite party . He was assassinated by naxalites . After his death the opp.parties failed to pay the policy amounts. Hence the complainants approached the District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay half of the maturity amounts under the policies to the complainants each and also direct them to pay 10,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed counter stating that a preliminary decree was passed vide O.S.No.13/1998 dt.18.9.2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur in the mortgage suit filed by LIC to recover the mortgage due to be recovered from the housing loan sanctioned to the deceased S.Vijaya Mohana Rao. The opposite parties stated that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and prayed for dismissal of the complaint .
Opp.party no.3 filed counter contending that her husband never married any lady by the name Prameela Devi and the 2nd complainant is not his daughter . Except the school certificate there is no other proof to say that the 2nd complainant is the daughter of late Vijaya Mohana Rao and that the marriage certificate of Prameela Devi is a fabricated one. Opp.party no.3 stated that she, being a legally wedded wife, is entitled to receive the claims under the LIC policies of her husband. The LIC authorities i.e. opp.parties 1 and 2 illegally stopped the payment under the LIC policies to the 3rd opposite party basing upon the false notice issued by Prameela Devi. The 3rd opp.party prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The complainants filed Exs.A1 to A7 documents. Opp.party no.3 filed documents Exs.B1 & B2 . The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings allowed the complaint directing opp.parties 1 & 2 to pay the maturity amounts of the 10 bonds of the deceased S.Vijaya Mohana Rao with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the notice i.e 28.4.2004 till the date of realisation to complainants 1 & 2 and 3rd opposite party in three equal shares within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the said order the 3rd opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. The District Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint to decide the successors or legal heirs of the deceased insured. The Dist.Forum failed to see that Civil Court alone is competent to issue a succession certificate after conducting proper enquiry. The complainants are not entitled to the insurance amount of the deceased policy holder. Opp.party no.3 has been nominated by her husband Siddam Vijaya Mohan Rao to receive the amounts due under the policies. The appellant submits that her husband never married Smt.Prameela Devi and they never gave birth to 2nd complainant. According to Hindu Succession Act an illegitimate child is not entitled to have share in the properties excepting to claim maintenance till she attains majority. The appellant submits that her husband took loan from LIC of India, which filed a suit in O.S.No.13/1998 against opp.party no.3 and her husband which were decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. . The District Forum failed to see that the children of opp.party no.3 alone are legally entitled along with opp.party no.3 for the insurance amounts of late S.Vijaya Mohan Rao. The appellant prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the order of the District Forum.
The points for determination arise are
1. Whether the District Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint with regard to the deciding the successors/legal heirs of the deceased ?
2. Whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable?
The appellant contended that the nature of the dispute is of civil nature , when the complainants have filed a complaint to declare them as legal heirs to succeed the properties of the deceased the proper Forum to decide the said aspect is Civil Court. The respondents 1 and 2 resisted the plea that as per the Section 3 of the C.P. Act additional remedy is available, the complainants can file a complaint either before the Civil Court or before the District Forum and there is no bar to entertain the complaint before the District Forum.
We have gone through all the documentary evidence filed by both the parties. There is no dispute that during the life time of the deceased Vijaya Mohan Rao, obtained insurance policies. (Ex.B1). Ex.A5 is the death certificate of Vijaya Mohan Rao. The appellant has taken a specific plea that a preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.13/1998 dt.18.9.2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur to recover the mortgage due to be recovered from the housing loan sanctioned to the deceased S.Vijaya Mohana Rao. The District Forum has not properly appreciated the said decree passed by the Civil Court. Ex.B1 insurance policies filed by opp.party No.3 to show that she has been nominated by her husband to receive the amounts under policies. The appellant has taken a specific plea that her husband never married Smt.Prameela Devi and never gave birth to complainant no.2 .
The District Forum erroneously observed that opp.party no.3 did not produce any evidence to disprove the marriage certificate filed by the complainant and also did not make any attempts to disprove that the 2nd complainant is the daughter of the deceased and stated that the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are entitled for the claim amounts under the policies of the deceased . We find force in the contention of the appellant that to decide the dispute with regard to the succession and legal heirs, Civil Courts alone are having jurisdiction. Apart from the appellant being the nominee, of the said bonds and she also is admittedly the legally wedded wife. Therefore, she is entitled as legal heir of the deceased under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act.
The Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to decide who are the legal heirs of the deceased and who is entitled for the claim amounts and for such disputes, the complainants have to approach the appropriate forum for adjudication. In the instant case, to reiterate, opposite party No.3, who is the legally wedded wife is the nominee as per Ex.A1 and therefore she alone is entitled to claim the policy amounts. Any other succession disputes cannot be adjudicated by the Consumer Fora.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the amounts to appellant/ opposite party No.3 alone. We set aside the direction that was given by the District Forum with regard to the amounts payable to complainants 1 and 2. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
dated 19-9-2008
