BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 30th day of January, 2006.
C.D.139/2003
K.Savithri W/o Late K.Nagesh,
Aged about 25 years, Widow,
R/o H.No.1/45, Kalva street,
Maddikera (Post and Mandal),
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1.Secretary,
Large Sized Co-operative Society,
Maddikera Mandalam,
Kurnool District.
2.Manager,
Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,
Opp Government General Hospital,
Kurnool.
3.United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, D.No.40/439,
Railway station Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 23.01.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri J.Lakshminarayana, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri G.I.Ahmed, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1, Sri.K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2 and Sri. C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.3, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking an award in favour of the complainant from the opposite parties to pay her the assured policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of death i.e. 26-4-2002, costs and other reliefs granted as the complainant may be entitled in the circumstances of this case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:
The complainant is the wife of one Late K.Nagesh. The said Nagesh is expired on 26-4-2002 in a road accident. He left behind his wife and three children as his legal heirs. The deceased Nagesh is a member of the “LARGE SIZED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY” Maddikera Mandal. On 23-6-2001 the said deceased obtained loan under Kishan Credit Card Loan account bearing No.611/K.C. On 26-5-2003 secretary of the said society issued a demand notice to the complainant for recovery of the loan amount borrowed by her husband. In view of the families of deceased members of the society a personal accident Group Insurance Scheme is sponsored by the said society. As per the terms of the Scheme-1 as to deduct the premium amount from the account of each member ryot and send it to the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 after processing, it should forward it to the opposite party No.3, for the purpose of insuring the life of the members of the society. The husband of the complainant died on 26-4-2002 in a road accident. After his death some officials of the society informed the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, that a sum of Rs.50,000/- will be paid by the insurance company to the dependents of the deceased. They have stated that a claim has also be made to the insurance company i.e. opposite party No.3 to that effect. In this connection, the complainant many a times visited the office of the opposite party No.1 at Maddikera and enquired about the insured amount. There was no response and ultimately the officials of the opposite party No.1 stated that as a premium amount was paid only on 6-5-2002 by the head office i.e. opposite party No.2 and policy bearing No.051100470200025 has been issued insuring the life of the Kalva Nagesh son of Ganjanna covering the period from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003. It is stated by the opposite party No.3 that as the beneficiary died on 26-4-2002 i.e. before the commencement of policy, the claim of opposite party No.1 cannot be entertained. Then the complainant on 2-6-2003 issued a advocate’s notice calling upon the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant and all the three opposite parties received said notices and acknowledged the same. In response to the said notice, the opposite party No.3 only issued a reply notice through their standing counsel denying all the allegations made in the notice by the complainant. Whereas the premium amount has been collected by the opposite party No.1 when the loan was granted to the deceased. It is only due to the latches on the part of the opposite party No.1 and 2, the premium amount has not been sent and as per the later of the opposite party No.3, it is said only on 6-5-2002 i.e. after the death of the husband of the complainant. It is the duty of the opposite party No.1 and 2 to send the deducted amount of the premium immediately to the insurance company. It is only on account of Red Tapism, dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, the complainant suffered loss and injury by not getting the insured amount. This attitude of the opposite parties in not paying the said assured amount is amounting to deficiency of service and hence, liable to pay the said amount to her.
3. The opposite parties who caused their appearance in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case, filed their written version denying any of their deficiency of service and questioning the justness in the case of the complainant and its maintainability in fact and law.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 even though admit the deceased K.Nagesh, husband of the complainant was a borrower member in the society since 23-6-2001 under loan account No.611/K.C. The insurance was covered to the deceased from 17-4-2001 to 16-4-2002 and insurance premium remitted by the opposite party No.2 for all the societies covered under the district Rs.2,01,537/- in which the opposite party No.1 amount is Rs.30,471/-. No premium amount was collected from the members of the society so far by the opposite party No.1 and still it is pending, since the policy of the opposite party No.2 is that first the opposite party No.2 is paying or remitting the premium amount to the opposite party No.3 under the group insurance scheme from its purse to cover all the members of the society of the district of Kurnool, and later the opposite party No.2 collects the pre paid premium amount from the societies and later the society will collect the premium amount from the members of the society during the collection period. Accordingly the above said period i.e. from 26-3-01 to 26-3-2002 was covered by the opposite party No.3 by receiving the premium of all the members of the borrowers of the opposite party No.1 from the opposite party No.2. Later for the period 2002-2003 the premium was paid by the opposite party No.2 under the policy No.0511004470200025 for the period of 6-5-2002 up to 5-5-2003 for the living borrowers. As a complainant’s husband died on 26-4-2002 i.e. after the expiry of the policy i.e. 16-4-2004 whereas the opposite party No.2 remitted the amount to the opposite party No.3 for coverage of new policy which commenced from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003 and no premium was collected from the deceased so far as he was died and he will not come under the current new group insurance policy, hence, the opposite party No.1 not held liable for the delay, latches, negligence and the irregularities, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. The written version of the opposite party No.2 filed on 1-12-2003 submits that the complaint is unjust and not maintainable in law and further the complainant is to prove that Nagaiah met with an accident on 26-4-2002 and died living behind the complainant and thee minor children. Immediately after the death there was no death intimation to this opposite party or opposite party No.1, however a notice of demand to pay the loan amount was sent to the complainant by opposite party No.1 and also the complainant is to prove that her deceased husband was covered under personal accident insurance scheme. The insurance policy is obtained effective from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003. The complainant’s husband has died earlier to this coverage. There was no latches on the part of this opposite party in obtaining insurance effective from 6-5-2002. The insurance coverage and payment of compensation is between the complainant and the insurance company. There was no Red Tapism in handling the correspondence. There is no cause of action for this complaint. This is a case of group insurance and it is only after collecting insurance premium from all the insureds, remittance will be made. This is a free service rendered by the society and this opposite party. Hence, the claim is unsustainable in law and the complaint is liable to dismissed.
6. The written version of opposite party No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed on 24-11-2005 denies all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof there of. The opposite party No.3 came into picture only with the new insurance policy No.051100/47/02/00025 which covers risks from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003. Hitherto the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., was the insurer which covered by the opposite party No.2 of the borrowing members of all the societies of opposite party No.2 including opposite party No.1 which are in its jurisdiction i.e. Kurnool district in its policies No.432102/Group. P.A./10423/2001 (Ex.B1) from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001 and other group personal accident insurance policy (Ex.B2) from 15-4-2001 to 14-4-2002. As the opposite party No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., was the new insurance company limited, which come into picture and covered the policy of the borrowing members of opposite party No.2 for the period from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003 under the above said policy as the complainant’s husband died on 26-4-2002 i.e. after commencement of the said policy i.e. 6-5-2002, the opposite party No.3 has no liability and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side had relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and her replies to interrogatories of opposite parties, the opposite parties has made their relevance on the documentary record in Ex.B1 to B5 and their sworn affidavits and reply of the complainant’s side for their interrogatories. The opposite party No.2 also filed written submission in substantiation of its case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite parties in the repudiation of the claim so has to enable herself to the reliefs claimed.?
9. The Ex.A1 is the demand notice dated 26-5-2003 of the opposite party No.1 to the complainant demanding to pay the due loan amount under the crop loan No.611/K.C. in which it is mentioned that as per the resolution No.3/28-2-2003 the above account transferred from the Kalva Nagesh (complainant’s husband) to Kalva Savithramma (complainant). The Ex.A2 is the legal notice dated 2-6-2003 of the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties informing them his client is the nominee of the deceased and failed to receive the insured amount due to delay and latches on their part. The Ex.A3,A4 and A5 are the acknowledgements of opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 respectively in token of the receipt of the Ex.A2 i.e. legal notice. The Ex.A6 dated 11-6-2003 is the legal notice issued by the counsel of the opposite party No.3 in reply to the notice of complainant’s counsel dated 2-6-2003 (Ex.A2) stating that no insurance policy was issued during the period i.e. at the time of the death of the complainant’s husband i.e. 26-4-2002, hence no liability of its part (opposite party No.3). The Ex.A7 is the certified copy No.42 of F.I.R. dated 26-4-2002. The Ex.A8 is the certified copy of postmortem certificate dated 27-4-2002. The Ex.A9 is the certified copy of inquest report. The Ex.A7 to A9 are pertaining to the complainant’s husband. The ExA10 is the original death certificate of the complainant’s husband mentioning the date of death as 26-4-2002 in it.
10. The Ex.B1 is an attested Xerox copy of the Group Personal Accident Policy No.432102/Group. P.A./10423/2001 of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., for the period from 15-4-2000 to mid night of 14-4-2001 (Both days inclusive) covering all the member borrowers of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies pertaining to the opposite party No.2. The Ex.B2 is an attested Xerox copy of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which covers the continuation period from 15-4-2001 to the mid night on 14-4-2002 covering as usual all the borrowing members of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies pertaining to opposite party No.2. The Ex.B3 is an attested Xerox copy of the loan ledger of the District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kurnool which revels except the complainant’s husband loan particulars i.e. dates of amount disbursed to him and the dates of collection from him, but not any deductions of insurance premia from him. It also revels that the loan account transferred in the name of the complainant vide resolution No.3/28-2-2003 since complainant’s husband died on 26-4-2002. The Ex.B4 is the legal notice issued by the counsel of the complainant to the opposite party No.1 and 3 requesting them to settle and pay the amount of policy to his client. The Ex.B5 is the office copy of the policy No.051100/47/02/00025 issued by the opposite party No.3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., ) in favour of the opposite party No.2 under Kishan Credit Card Scheme for the period from 6-5-2002 to mid night of 5-5-2003 by receiving the insurance premium of Rs.18,34,650/- pertaining to 18 branches of opposite party No.2. The total sum insured in the policy was Rs.607 crores and 55 lakhs covering the risk of Rs.1,22,310/- Kishan Credit Card holders of opposite party No.2 pertaining to various villages of the said branches of their concerned Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies.
11. As seen from Ex.B1 to B2 the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., was the insurer for the periods from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001 and 15-4-01 to 14-4-02 for Kishan Credit Card holders of opposite party No.2 whereas the opposite party No.3 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer for Kishan Credit Card holders of opposite party No.2 for the period from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003. If the opposite party No.2 would have been continued its arrangements of insurance for the benefits of its borrowing members with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurance, should have been renewed as usual from 15-4-2002 to 14-4-2003 in continuation of Ex.B2 and the complainant also should have been covered under the said insurance and the complainant got benefited as her husband died on 26-4-2002 i.e. well within the above coverage period. By switching over from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., to the opposite party No.3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., ) the opposite party No.2 tie up with the opposite party No.3 for coverage of insurance of its borrowing members has nothing to do with the insured’s of its societies. Even the opposite party No.1 has no knowledge about this. As seen from the opposite party No.1’s averments at para 10 of its written version and at para 6 of sworn affidavit and Ex.B.1toB.3 and B.5 it clearly shows that suo moto the opposite party No.2 has covered all its borrowing members of all societies of the entire district which will come under its jurisdiction. This customary arrangement was averred by the opposite party No.1 in its written version and sworn affidavit was not rebutted by the opposite party No.2. If such is the practice in vogue, the opposite party No.2 would have taken care of its welfare of the borrowing members which is obligatory on its party and he would have made arrangements well in advance i.e. before the expiry of the above said Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., i.e. 14-4-2002 and opposite party No.2 would have enter the said tie up arrangements with the said company i.e. opposite party No.3. As the opposite party No.2 is the custodian of group personal accident policies obtained from the said insurance companies (Ex.B1,B2 and B5) infact opposite party No.2 is the insured for the accounts of various insureds has seen from the Ex.B1,B2 and B5. The change of insurance tie up from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (Ex.B1 to B2) to opposite party No.3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., ) for the said act no cogent material is adduced by the opposite party No.2 such as any administrative circulars from its higher-ups, board resolution if any and any other material and even there was no wisper either in written version, the sworn affidavit and written submission which was worthy for appreciation to take into consideration, due to said unexplained, unwarranted act which is purely one sided without proper intimation to the societies in turn to its borrowing members. If you think for a while even the opposite party No.2 for his administrative convenience which warranted him to switch over from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which covered insurance of opposite party No.2’s borrowing members from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001 (Ex.B1) and from 15-4-2001 to 14-4-2002 (Ex.B2) to United India Insurance Ltd., he would have taken steps to plan well in advance and to continue the policy from 15-4-2002 to 14-4-2003 with the said United India Insurance Ltd., as the said borrowers in the said Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., policies are old borrowing members, complainant’s husband was also one among them, which can be seen from the Ex.B3 i.e. from 31-3-2000 onwards till the date of death i.e. 26-4-2002 and subsequently the loan has been transferred in the name of the complainant who is the wife of the deceased. But the opposite party No.2 has obtained the policy from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003 (Ex.B5) from United India Insurance Company Ltd. This negligent and lethargic attitude of the opposite party No.2 in not covering the policy from 15-4-2002 onwards of its old borrowing members was detrimental and made to loose the opportunity of entitleness of the benefits of said policy not only by the complainant but also number of old borrowers through out the district whose lives at stake due to the break of period i.e. from 15-4-2002 to 6-5-2002.
12. As seen from the Ex.B5 it is very clear that the huge amount of Rs.18,34,650/- has been collected towards premium of Kishan Credit Card holders of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies from the opposite party No.2 which covers the various villages of ryots who borrow loans from the concerned Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies by taking membership and the sum insured under this policy is Rs.607 crores and 55 lakhs. It shows how much importance attributed to this type group personal accident policy which is a welfare measure for the benefit of agriculturists who met with an accident during their day to day activities, in case of such eventualities the nominee of the said beneficiary after the death of he/she would have been enjoyed the benefit of the said policy. If any negligence or lethargic attitude in renewing such an important policy within time is detrimental to the agricultural community, who are the borrowing members of the opposite party No.2, which is within his perview as seen from the Ex.B1, B2 and Ex.B5 by paying the premium from its resources and obtain group personal accident policy and later the opposite party No.2 can collect the said pre paid premium amount from the concerned societies, (here opposite party No.1) and later the said societies will collect the said premium amount from the borrowing members of the society during the collection period. This fact averred at para 10 of written version and reiterated the same in sworn affidavit at para 6 of the opposite party No.1. The Ex.B3 also reflects the same i.e. no premium amount has been deducted from the loan account of the complainant.
13. The opposite party No.2 counsel in its written submission taken the plea that there is no mandate as to when insurance has to be obtained. So when there was no such mandate, not buying insurance coverage at any particular time of the year cannot be equated as deficiency of service. But the opposite party No.2’s counsel failed to file any cogent material in support of his plea but taken plea for plea sake. Further the opposite party No.2’s counsel taken another plea that opposite party No.2 is described as Manager of Kurnool District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., under the bye law No.27, the General Manager of District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., be the officer to sue or to be sued on behalf of the bank. By filing vakalat by the opposite party No.2’s counsel on behalf of The General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kurnool. The written version and sworn affidavit also filed by the General Manager of the said Bank to adjudicate the matter in this Forum. In the absence of the certified copy of the bye law No.27 of the said bank for its appreciation and by filing vakalat for opposite party No.2 by its counsel for the said General Manager and filing of written version and sworn affidavit by the General Manager himself as mentioned above and at this juncture the opposite party No.2 is estoped to take such a mere Technical plea at 11th hour by its counsel in its written arguments dt. 14-12-2005 cannot hold any water in the appreciation of the said plea in this case.
14. Hence, absolutely there is no substantiating material in support of the opposite party No.2 and failure to cover the risk of the borrowing members of opposite party No.2 in continuation Ex.B2 i.e. from 15-4-2002 onwards which is a must and legitimate duty of the opposite party No.2 as it is well within his perview, as he is neglected the same and made to suffer the complainant. This attitude of the opposite party No.2 is certainly amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as bonafidies of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
15. As no cause of action is made out against the opposite party No.1& 3, the complaint against them is dismissed.
16. In the result, and in sum up of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- which was covered under the group personal accident policy of the deceased to the complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of the death of the complainant’s husband i.e. 26-4-2002 till realization along with Rs.2,000/- as cost of this complaint and that the opposite party No.2 is granted one month time for the compliance from the date of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party No.2 shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of said default till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Demand notice issued by opposite party, addressed to complainant,
Dt.26-5-2003.
Ex.A2 Office copy of the legal notice, Dt.2-6-2003.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A4 Postal Acknowledgement by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A5 Postal Acknowledgement by opposite party No.3.
Ex.A6 Reply notice, Dt.11-6-2003 issued by counsel of opposite party No.3.
Ex.A7 C.C of First Information Report (FIR) P.S. Gooty, year 2002, FIR No.42,
Dt.26-4-2002.
Ex.A8 C.C of Post-Mortem Certificate, Dt.27-4-2002.
Ex.A9 C.C of Inquest Report of K.Nagesh in Cr.No.42/02.
Ex.A10 Death Certificate of K.Nagesh issued by Gram Panchayat at Gooty.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of Group Personal Accident Policy of the opposite party
No.3 for the year 2000 to 2001.
Ex.B2 Schedule of Group Accident Policy (Attested copy) period of insurance
from 15-4-2000 to 14-4-2001.
Ex.B3 Attested copy of Ledger of the Dist. Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kurnool.
Ex.B4 Office copy Legal notice, Dt.19-10-2002 addressed by complainant to
opposite party.
Ex.B5 Office copy of policy issued by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.2
period from 6-5-2002 to 5-5-2003.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. J.Lakshminarayana, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. G.I.Ahmed, Advocate, Kurnool
3. Sri. K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool
4. Sri. C.M.K.Ranjani, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
