BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Tuesday, the 03rd day of June, 2008.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 74/2007
Between:
Smt. Chamakura Pitchamma, W/o Late Uppal Reddy,
Age: about 40 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Madipally (V), Thorrur (M),
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. The Secretary,
Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society,
Thorrur,
Warangal District.
2. The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, H.No.0-6-54,
II Floor, Dr.KSR Sastry Compolex,
JPN Road, Warangal.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. P. Surender Kumar, Advocate
Opposite Party No.1 : Did not appear and has been Set Exparte.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri Y. Manohar Rao, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and interest 12% p.a. with costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant is the wife of Ch.Uppal Reddy (Herein after referred to as the deceased). The deceased during his life time was the member of Opposite party No.1 society and all the members of the society were insured through Opposite party No.2 under Janatha Policy. On 18-09-99 the husband of the complainant went to agricultural fields and when he was attending agricultural work at about 14.00 hours accidentally he was bitten up by a cobra snake to his little finger of right leg. Immediately the husband of the complainant was shifted for Thorrur for treatment but the attendant doctor advised them to approach in MGM Hospital, Warangal. When the deceased was shifting to MGM Hospital, he was died on the way in between Rayaparthy and Wardhannapet, so the complainant take back the dead body to their village and lodged a complaint before Police Thorrur and that the police, Thorrur conduct inquest and sent the dead body to the mortuary for conducting postmortem. As per the opinion given by the doctor in postmortem report that the deceased died due to snake bite. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached the opposite parties for compensation amount, but the opposite parties did not pay. Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 6-3-07 to Opposite party No.2, for which no reply is received. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for redressal of her grievance.
Opposite party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
This complaint is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
Inspite of service of notice on opposite party No.1, Opposite party No.1 called absent. Hence, this Forum set it exparte.
The complainant in support of her claim filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of opposite parties S.Ravi Kumar filed his Affidavit, but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration whether there is any ground to allow this petition and the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ @ interest 12% pa.. and with costs.
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
The arguments of the complainant counsel is that on 18-9-99 the husband of the complainant went to agricultural fields and that when he was attending agriculture work at about 14.00 hours accidentally he was bitten by cobra snake to his little finger of right leg. The husband of the complainant shifted to Thorrur for treatment, but the attendant doctor advised them to approach MGM Hospital, Warangal . When the husband of the complainant shifting to MGM Hospital, he died on the way in between Rayaparthy and Wardhannapet. So that the complainant took back the dead body to their village and lodged complaint before Police Thorrur and the Police Thorrur conducted inquest and sent the dead body to Mortuary for conducting post mortem. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite parties for compensation amount, but they did not pay the amount and they repudiated on 5-12-2000 by opposite party NO.2 for the reason that Forensic Lab report from the competent authorities was not furnished. As a matter of fact the opposite party No.2 did not consider the original postmortem report . the complainant approached opposite party No.2 by submitting the circular issued by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad in which it is clear that whenever snake bite is caused to the individual there is no separate Forensic Lab report is required. And the complainant requested them to got compensation. Therefore the complainant requested the opposite party No.2 for payment of compensation by giving written representation on 5-2-2007, but the opposite party No.2 did not give any reply. Hence, she filed this case before this Forum.
The counsel for opposite parties argued that this is a barred by limitation and the complainant is not entitled to get anything and moreover she failed to produce FSL report before them. That is the reason she is not
entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties. And further the counsel for insurance argued that when the claim was repudiated on 16-12-2000 by this opposite party that would be the date of cause of action and the complainant should file the complaint within 2 years, but it is filed after 8 years.
For this our answer is that the insurance is liable to pay compensation. Because our first point is that As per Exs.A-7, A-8 and A-9 they clearly goes to show that the complainant is sending process through letter and her last letter is Ex.A-12 dated 6-3-2007. It clearly goes to show that the complainant requested the opposite parties to settle the claim of her husband. It is true as per Opposite party No.2 they stated that they repudiated on 6-12-2000, But here last legal notice sent by complainant on 6-3-2007 as per Section 24 (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the limitation starts from the repudiation. Here the last notice is Ex.A-12. But the opposite parties have not given any reply. So from this only the limitation starts and the complainant filed this case on 12-4-2007. So this complaint is in time. When this complaint is in time certainly the complaint is not barred by limitation. When the complaint is not barred by limitation certainly the insurance is liable to pay the compensation.
With regard to another point our answer is that whether the complainant husband died due to snake bite and whether it is accidental or not. On the basis of Ex.A-2 Post Mortem given by doctor it clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to snake bite. So we accept Ex.A-2 Post Mortem Certificate and we come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to snake bite. The deceased died due to snake bite it is only accidental. When the death of the husband of the complainant is accidental certainly the insurance is liable to pay compensation.
The counsel for complainant cited a judgment in
2004 (2) CPR 130 (NC)
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Dr.V.Pahwa … Appellant
VS
Surindra Moahn Ghose … Respondent
This judgment shows that limitation started from the patient felt aggrieved- Complaint was not time barred.
In another judgment 2004 (3) CPR 421
Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisisoj, Bhopal.
Terence Correya … Complainant
Vs
Maruthi Udyog Limited and another.
Complainant continued to correspond with dealer for car delivery and finally wrote to Regional Manager, manufacturer on 25-7-2000 for refund of the amount – Cause of action arose when no payment was made despite notice dt.15-2-2002- Complaint was in limitation.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we come to the conclusion that Opposite party No.2 is liable to pay compensation.
Point No.2 : To what relief: The first point is decided in favour of complainant against the opposite party, this point also decided in favour of complainant against opposite party.
In the result this complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit and also we award an amount of Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to opposite party No.2 for the compliance of the order.
The claim against opposite party No.1 is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 3rd June, 2008)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit of O.P.2 filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Attested copy of FIR, dt.19-9-99.
- Ex.A-2 Attested copy of Postmortem Certificate.
- Ex.A-3 Attested copy of Final Reprt.
- Ex.A-4 Attested copy of Inquest.
- Ex.A-5 Letter from Opposite party to complainant, dt.5-7-2000.
- Ex.A-6 Letter from Opposite party to Complainant, dt.5-12-2000.
- Ex.A-7 Letter from Complainant to Life Insurance Corporation.
- Ex.A-8 Letter from complainant to opposite party.
- Ex.A-9 Letter from complainant to opposite party, 5-2-07.
- Ex.A-10 photostat copy of FSL report.
- Ex.A-11 Acknowledgment receipt.
- Ex.A-12 o/c of legal notice issued to Opposite partyNo.2, dt.6-3-07.
On behalf of Opposite party.
NIL
Sd/-
President.
