BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.19 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY
Between
1. The Asst. General Manager
M/s S.B.H. Region IV, Secunderabad
Zonal office, D.NO.1-11-215/19/A,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-019
2. The Branch Manager
State Bank of Hyderabad
ADB Pargi Branch
Ranga Reddy District
Appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2
A N D
1. Smt Cheguri Vijayalaxmi
W/o C.Venkataiah, aged 28 years
Occ: Housewife, R/o Pedda Ummentala Village
Padur Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Respondent/complainant
2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager
2A, I Floor, Vengal Rao Nagar
Hyderabad (Policy No.05050047/04/00346)
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Y.Venkataramana
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri Neela Harigopal
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri V.Krishna Rao
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 in C.C.No.19 of 2006 on the file of the District forum Ranga Reddy are the appellants. The appeal is the result of the order dated 26.4.2008 of the District Forum whereby the appellants had been directed to pay a sum of `2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum and `1,500/- towards costs. The sum of `2,00,000/- is said to have been the assured sum in terms of master insurance policy issued by the opposite party no.3.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.
3. The husband of the complainant namely C.Venkataiah during his life time was a SBH Krushi Credit Card holder vide card No.01670086280. The card was issued by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 on 17.8.2004. An amount of `50/- was debited on 2.9.2004 from the account of the complainant’s husband by the opposite parties no.2 towards premium for the Master Insurance Policy. The Master Insurance Policy, implemented through banks by the Govt. of India and NABARD is a personal accident insurance scheme covering the risk of the Krushi Credit Card Holders whereunder the banks were to deduct the premium from the account of the Krushi Credit Card Holders and remit the amount to the insurance company. A sum of `246/- was deducted by the opposite party no.2 on 8.9.2005 towards the premium of the insurance policy. On 27.9.2004 the complainant’s husband was bitten by a snake while he was working in his field and died of snake bite. FIR was registered inquest and postmortem was conducted on the body of the complainant’s husband.
4. The complainant lodged claim and as her claim was not settled by the opposite parties, she got issued notice to them for which on 30.11.2005 the opposite parties gave a short reply that the claim was under examination. However, the claim of the complainant was not settled whereby she has filed the complaint seeking the relief of `2,00,000/- as assured sum.
5. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 contended that they had not charged any amount for processing the premium in obtaining Master Insurance Policy. It is contended that the contract was between the husband of the complainant and the opposite party no.3 and that the policy is a group scheme and not an individual policy and as per the scheme the bank has to pay 2/3rd of the premium amount and the card holder would pay 1/3rd of the amount to the opposite party no.3. It was submitted that the service tax was waived for the scheme under the master insurance policy. As per the terms of the policy the nominee has to give notice to the bank concerned within 30 days from the date of death of the deceased. The complainant has intimated the death of her husband only through the notice dated 24.11.2005. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are only acted as the agents of the opposite party no.3.
6. It was contended on behalf of the opposite party no.3 that several branches of the State Bank of Hyderabad have collected insurance premium from 1508 beneficiaries and remitted a sum of `67,860/- on 12.10.2004. The opposite party no.1 had immediately issued insurance policy for the period from 13.10.2004 to 12.10.2007. The opposite party no.3 has received the premium on 13.10.2004 and issued the policy on the same day w.e.f., 13.10.2004. The complainant’s husband died on 2 7.9.2004, much prior to the date of issuance of the insurance policy. Therefore, risk on the life of the complainant’s husband was not covered by the insurance policy. It was stated that there was long gap between the date of collection of premium by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the date of issuing of insurance policy by the opposite party no.3.
7. The complainant has filed her affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A8. Seethapathi Sharma, the Assistant General Manager of opposite party no.1 bank and Y.Sudhakar, the Divisional Manager of opposite party no.3 insurance company have filed their affidavits and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.
8. The District Forum has allowed the complaint against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and dismissed it against the opposite party no.3 on the premise that the opposite party no.3 cannot be fastened with liability as the insurance policy was issued subsequent to the death of the complainant’s husband and the opposite parties no.1 and 2 were held liable that the opposite party no.1 collected the premium and had not remitted the amount within a reasonable time.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 have filed the appeal contending that the bank had not charged any amount towards service charge and the service rendered by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 is gratuitous so also the bank has paid 2/3rd amount of the premium giving the credit card holder an opportunity to pay only 1/3rd amount of the premium in order to lessen the burden on the Krushi Credit Card holders. It was contended that the complainant had not given the information within 30 days from the date of death of her husband and that the bank had not assured commencement date of the insurance policy and that as per clause 7 F of the scheme the risk on the life of the complainant’s husband is not covered.
10. The point for consideration is whether the opposite parties no.1 and 2 rendered deficient service in processing the premium for obtaining the insurance policy.
11. The short question in a narrow compass in the dispute is in regard to the time for collection of the premium by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 from their Krushi Credit card holders and the time for remittance of the amount by the oppostiep arty no.3. It is not disputed that the complainant’s husband was a Krushi Credit Card Holder with the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and that on 27.9.2004 he died due to snake bite. The Dsitrict Forum has exonerated the opposite party no.3 as the complainant’s husband died on 27.9.2004 and the insurance policy was issued by opposite party no.3 subsequent to his death i.e., on 13.10.2004. The complainant has not disputed the fact that the opposite party no.3 has received the premium and issued the insurance policy on 13.10.2004. Therefore, the dispute remains between the complainant and the opposite parties no.1 and 2.
12. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had stated that they had paid 2/3rd of premium apart from the 1/3rd of the premium paid by the complainant’s husband. It is contended that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not charged any amount and rendered free service in collecting the premium from various Krushi Card Holders and remitting the amount to the opposite party no.3. The complainant has not denied the service rendered free of charge by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in collection of the premium and remittance of the amount to the opposite party no.3. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 paid 2/3rd of the premium to the opposite party no.3 for the purpose of obtaining the insurance policy. Thus, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are elevated to the position of the insured by making payment of 2/3rd of the premium amount to the opposite party no.3.
13. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have to collect the premium from 1508 Krushi Credit Card holders and remit the amount to the opposite party no.3. It is not as though collection of the amount from a single Krushi Credit Card holder to remit the premium to the opposite party no.3. For the collection of premium from over 1500 Krushi Credit Card holders would naturally require time for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the collection of the amount in reasonable time has to be considered in conjunction with the contention of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 that there exists no contract between them and the complainant’s husband for fixing time for collection of the premium and remittance of the amount to the opposite party no.3. In that view of the matter, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not rendered any deficient service.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 cannot be held guilty of any negligence. The finding of the District Forum that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 caused inordinate delay in collection and remittance of the premium does not stand to scrutiny. The appeal deserves to be allowed.
15. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.25.11.2010
KMK*
