THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH).

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF JULY 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1085/2015

The Senior Superintendent  of Post Office,

Kolar Division Office, P.C.Extension Kolar.  

……….Appellants.

(By Shri/Smt. B.Pramod, Adv.,)

                                                -Versus-

Shri. Sonnappa S/o Late Munichowdappa,

A/a 50 years. R/at Beeramanahalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk.

(By. Sri. V.Venkatachalagowda, Adv.,)

:ORDERS:

BY SMT. SUNITA C. BAGEWADI  -  LADY MEMBER

         This appeal is filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated:09.11.2015 passed by Kolar District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.1085/2015. 

2.      The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission. 

3.      The brief facts of the complaint is that:-

         The complainant submits that late Ramakka W/o Late. Munichowdappa, aged about 35 years who is the Mother of the complainant was the policy holder of the Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-EA-392777 issued on 12.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- risk commenced from the date of issuance of policy till the maturity date or death of insured whichever is earlier.   The complainant further submitted that he was the nominee under the said policy and that the insured had regularly paid a premium amount of Rs.331/- PM and insured died on 06/07/2013.  The complainant further submitted that after the death of the insured, they have orally informed to the Opposite Party about the death of the insured and the Opposite Party was silent in settling the matter.  Being aggrieved by this act of Opposite Party, the complainant got issued a legal notice through his counsel on 06.03.2015, for which also the Opposite Party has not responded.  Hence, the complaint.

4.      The Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and submitted his written version and contended that the deceased/insured had made her husband Munichowdappa as nominee who pre deceased (09.08.2012) and as the complainant was not nominee to the said policy and policy holder died without nominee.  Hence, nobody could claim.  The Opposite Party further contended that age of the insured as 50 years (reliance on voter ID) as on the date of the policy, whereas she declared her date of birth as 05/09/1973 and hence 35 years, because of suppression of facts Under Rule 39 of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules was cause for rejecting the claim.  The Opposite Party further contended that the complainant ought to have submitted succession certificate as the complainant cannot claim policy amount.  Hence, the complainant is not a Consumer and that the Opposite Party was not deficiency in rendering the service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      After trail, the District Commission, Kolar has passed an award as under:-

The complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

The complainant is held entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- being the maturity value of the insurance policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-EA-392777 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the matured sum from 07.04.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization for to be recovered from the Opposite Party.

6.      Being aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party is in appeal on various grounds.

7.      Heard arguments from both sides.

8.      Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission, Kolar and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that late Ramakka W/o Late. Munichowdappa, aged about 35 years who is the Mother of the complainant was the policy holder of the Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-EA-392777 issued on 12.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- risk commenced from the date of issuance of policy till the maturity date or death of insured whichever is earlier  and insured had regularly paid a premium amount of  Rs.331/- PM and insured died on 06/07/2013.  It is also an admitted fact that the claim of the complainant is repudiated by the Opposite Party on the ground that the insured has suppressed the actual age at the time of taking the policy.  If correct age was mentioned in the declaration form i.e., 50 years, the Department would not have accepted the policy, because as per 9-B of Postal Life Insurance Rule 2011 after attaining the age of 45 years, the payable premium will be vary. 

9.      Looking to the policy, we seen that the date of birth of insured is mentioned as 5^th September 1977 i.e., age on 12.03.2008 at the time of taking the policy, she was 35 years and as per the contention of the appellant, at the time of taking of policy, the insured had given self-declaration and not produced any document.  The present complainant submitted that the claim form (after the death of insured) with voter ID, which was issued during 2010, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 1958.  We agree in the rural area, among people have unaware about their date of birth, time etc as they are illiterate people.  However, compared to voter ID and self declaration of the insured, there is about 15 years age difference, which cannot be considered sympathetically.  Anyhow, a contract between the insurer and insured is in good faith.  Hence, in good faith, the insured has to be declared her real age at the time of taking the policy or should produce any authenticate document for age proof.  Hence, in our opinion there is negligence on deficiency in service on the part of deceased/insured.

10.    Moreover, the appellant in his appeal memo at Para-20 stated as follows:-

“At the time of procuring the policy the insurant had submitted self declaration of date of birth as 5^th September 1973 with a aged 35 years on 2008, though the insurant was aged about 50 years.  The premium of the policy was fixed at Rs.331/- per month based on the age of the insurant – 35 years, if the age of the insurant was 50 years then she was liable to pay premium which works out to be Rs.924/- per month.  The department be permitted to deduct the said difference of premium amount and also interest amount, out of the amount to be paid to the respondent here in.”            

11.     Hence, in our opinion if the appellant is ready to pay the amount after deducting the said difference, it is just and proper to direct the Opposite Party to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- after deducting the said difference of premium amount along with interest @ 6% per annum from 07/04/2015 till realization along with Rs.3,000/- costs.  Accordingly,

:-ORDER:-

The appeal is disposed-of.

The impugned order dated:09/11/2015 passed by the District Commission, Kolar in C.C.No.13/2015 is hereby modified as under:-

The Opposite Party is directed to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant after deducting the said difference of premium amount along with interest @ 6% PA from 07/04/2015 till realization along with cost of Rs.3,000/-.

The Opposite Party is directed to comply the above order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings as per C.P. Act.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant.

Return the LCR forthwith to the concerned District Commission.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as District Commission.

Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Lady Member.                                                      Judicial Member.

Tss