BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Monday the 24th day of January , 2011
C.C.No 63/10
Between:
S.Prema Nelamma W/o. Late S.Savarnna Alias James Age 54 years, H.No. 1/89,E.Thandrapadu Village,Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool - 51 8 001.
…Complainant
-Vs-
- Senior Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional office, 2/194 (2),Lakshmi Ranga Road,Kadapa - 516 001.
- Branch Manger Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,
Kurnool Main Branch, Near S.B.I., Kurnool - 518 001.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. Kusupati Muralidhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri P.Sunkanna Advocate for opposite party No.2 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 63/10
This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite parties:-
- To pay the policy amount of Rs. 50,000/-to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of policy holder i.e., 06-05-2007 to the date of realization,
- To grant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony,
- To grant cost of the complaint,
(d) To grant such reliefs as the Honorable Forum deems to be fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2) The case of the complainant in brief is as under: - The complainant is the wife of the deceased Late S.Savaranna, who died on 06-05-2007 due to horns hits by his own bullocks. The deceased was the account holder of pragathi Kisan Card. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the nominee is entitled for insured amount of Rs 50,000/- in case of accidental death of the insured. After the death of the insured the complainant who is the nominee has submitted claim form to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 along with the relevant documents. But surprisely the Opposite party No.1 on 11-01-2008 repudiated the complainant’s claim on the ground that the complainant not submitted the FIR, INQUEST, P.M, and Charge sheet. Opposite Party.No.1 repudiated the claim with out any lawful cause. Hence the complainant.
3. Opposite party No. 1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that opposite party.No.2 obtained Kisan card from opposite party.No.1. There are terms and conditions in the policy to make a claim. The claim was repudiated as the complainant did not submit required information. The repudiation of the claim by opposite party.No.1 is legal. The forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The insurer and insured are residents of Kadapa and the policy is issued at Kadapa. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.No.1. The complainant is liable to be dismissed.
Opposite Party.No.2 filed written version stating that Late S.Savaranna was Pragathi Kisan Card account holder of opposite party.No.2. The complainant submitted the claim form along with documents. They were submitted to opposite party.No.1 to settle the claim. But opposite party.No.1 rejected the claim. The some was informed to the complainant. The complainant has to fulfill the conditions imposed by the opposite party.No.1
- On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of Sri B.Venkateswrulu are filed. On behalf of the opposite parties. Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 & 2 are filed.
- Both sides filed written arguments.
- The points that arise for consideration are :-
- Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complainant?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief’s as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7.POINT No.1 :- The Complainant filed the complaint claiming assured amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the policy issued by opposite party.No.1. It is the case of the opposite party.No.1 that the insurer and insured are residents of Kadapa, that the policy was issued at Kadapa and that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. As seen from Ex. B1 policy it is very clear that the office of the insurer is at Kadapa. The head office of Andhra pragathi grameena Bank is at Kadapa. The policy was issued by the insurer in favour of the insured at Kadapa. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for by the complainant that Savaranna, Kisan Card account holder died at E.Thandrapadu Village of Kurnool Mandal and that this forum has got territorial jurisdiction Ex.A.3 is the death certificate of Saravanna. It is mentioned in Ex.A.3 that the place of the death of saravanna is E.Thandrapadu of Kurnool District. As per section 11 of the consumer protection Act a complaint can be filed in a District Forum with in the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The complainant in her affidavit evidence stated that her husband died in E.Thandrapadu Village. As the part of cause of action has arisen with in the legal limits of this District Forum, the contention of the opposite party.No.1 cannot be accepted.
8.Point 2 & 3 :-
Admittedly opposite party.No.1 issued policy Ex.B.1 in favour of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Kadapa under Kisan credit card scheme. As per the terms and conditions of the said policy the nominee is entitled to insured amount of Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death of the member who obtained loan from opposite party.No.2 Bank. Admittedly the complainant’s husband Saravanna obtained loan from opposite party.No.2 Bank and paid premium Rs.15/- to opposite party.No.2. The Saravanna is an account holder under Kisan Credit scheme is not under dispute.
9. It is the case of the complainant that her husband Saravanna died on 06-05-2007 because of the injuries sustained by him due to hit of horns of his bullocks on 05-05-2007. The complainant to prove that her husband died due to hit of horns of bullocks relied on Exs. A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.3 is the death certificate of saravanna issued by VRO Nirdur Village of Kurnool Mandal. It is mentioned in Ex. A.3 that Saravanna died on 06-05-2007 because of hit of horns by bullocks. Ex.A.1 is the Medical certificate issued Dr.D.V.Ramana. It is also mentioned in Ex.A.1 that Saravanna died on 06-05-2007 due to injuries received by him. Ex.A.2 is the copy of the panchanama dated 06-05-2007 which is attested by VRO Nirdur Village and sur-panch of E.Thandrapadu. In Ex.A.2 there is a clear mention that the deceased Saravanna received injuries due to hit of horns by his bullocks on 05-05-2007 and that he died on 06-05-2007 due to the injuries received by. The complainant in her affidavit evidence clearly stated that her husband died due to the injuries sustained by him by hit of horns of bullocks. The complainant also filed third party affidavit evidence of B.Venkatesulu surpanch of E.Thandrapadu who acted as a witness at the time of inquest. B.Venkatesulu the surpanch of Village in his affidavit clearly stated that on 07-05-2007 he along with VRO and village elders conducted panchanama over the dead body of Late Saravanna and that the cause of the death of Saravanna is due to bullock horns hit. From the evidence available on record it is clear that on 05-05-2007 Saravanna received injuries due to hit of horns of his bullocks and that he died due to said injuries on 06-05-2007 while under going treatment in Noble Hospital Kurnool. The complainant could able to establish that the death of her husband was accidental.
10. Admittedly after the death of Saravanna the complainant who is the nominee, submitted claim form to opposite party.No.1 through opposite party.No.2. Opposite party.No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant through Ex.A.6 dated 11-01-2008 stating that the complainant failed to submit the FIR, Inquest, P.M certificate and Charge sheet. It is not the case of the complainant that after death of her husband she gave a police report and that police registered the case. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for opposite party.No.1 that in the absence of the FIR, P.M certificate and charge sheet the claim of the complainant cannot be settled. In a decision reported in IV (2009) CPJ 121 (NC), the National Commission held “that onus to prove accidental death of insured on petitioner. Required documents are not produced on record in support of accidental death. The accidental death not proved. The petition is not entitled for relief”. In the present case on hand the complainant produced available documents along with claim form. Those documents show that Saravanna died accidentally due to injuries received by him because of hit of horns by bullocks. Merely because the complainant did not produce the FIR, Postmortem certificate and charge sheet her claim cannot be rejected. In a decision reported in (2009) CJ 706(A.P) and IV (2008)CPJ 312 it was held that “non furnishing of FIR and post mortem report would not mean that no accident took place. No necessity of lodging FIR and post mortem report when no offence took place”. In the present case also no offence took place. No report was lodged by the complainant regarding the injuries sustained by her husband due to hit of horns of bullocks. Admittedly the insurance company issued Ex. B.1 insurance policy. It is liable to pay the assured amount to the nominee of the member of the Kisan Credit Card who died accidentally. In the present case there is evidence on record to show that the husband of the complainant died accidentally. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant by opposite party.No.1 is not just and reasonable. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. No.1. The complainant is entitled to the insured amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
11. In the result the complainant is partly allowed directing opposite party.No.1 to pay assured amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the clam i.e.,11-01-2008 till the date of payment along with cost of RS.500/-. The complainant against opposite party.No.2 is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by her in the open bench on this the 24th day of January, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of certificate Siri Noble Hospitals, dt. 1-6-2007.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Panchanama of dead body of S.Savaranna, Dt. 7-5-2007.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Death Certificate dt. 23-6-2007.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of letter dt.13-6-2007 of Andhra Prgathi
Grameena Bank, Kadapa, to OP1.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of letter dt. 18-9-2007 of Andhra Pragathi
Grameena Bank, Kurnool, to OP1.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Claim Repudiation letter dt. 11-1-2008 of
OP2 to OP1.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Claim Repudiation letter dt. 13-8-2007to
OP1 to OP2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Policy NO.050900/47/06/43/00000100 along with terms
and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
