OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.8 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM WARANGAL

Between

1. Andhra Bank, Extension Counter
   Collectorate Branch, Hanamkonda,
   Warangal rep. by its
   Senior Branch Manager
2. The Zonal Manager
   Andhra Bank, Opp. Ashok Theatre
   Chowrastha, Hanamkonda.

                                                                Appellants/opposite parties

        A N D

Smt G.Nirmala W/o Krishnamurthy
24 years, Business, Kirana Shop
R/o H.No.2-7-925, Alipura Subedari,
Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist.

                                                                Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant             Sri K.Sridhar Rao

Counsel for the Respondent          Sri P.M.Srinivas

 QUORUM:                  SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

      &

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                               THURSDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
           ***

1.     The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants.

2.     The facts of the case are that the complainants grand mother Duggishetti Sushila Bai during her life time had operated Andhra Bank Abhaya Bank Savings Account No.ABJ-3 with the opposite party no.1 and appointed the complainant as her nominee for the account.  The complainants’ grandmother died on 30.9.2004 due to heart ailment.  The complainant got issued notice on 7.8.2006 to the opposite party no.1 stating that her grandmother died due to heart failure and she had intimated the death of her grandmother to the first opposite party.  Further, it was stated that insurance coverage till November 2005 was in force and as such she was entitled to claim the amount.  Her query  however was stated to have been given response that the opposite parties had not received any claim or documents from the complainant. 

3.     The opposite parties resisted the claim on the grounds that the complainant has not informed the factum of death of the account holder at any point of time nor did the complainant ever approach the first opposite party.  It was contended that the first opposite party came to know about the death of the account holder through the notice that was got issued by the complainant and communicated to the opposite partyno.1 in the second week of August 2006.  Immediately after receipt of the notice the opposite partyno.1 had explained the complainant the procedure for submission of claim and informed her that the bank will not be responsible for non-submission of claim and submission of the claim beyond the prescribed time.  The complainant without lodging any claim has filed the complaint without impleading the insurance company which has issued the insurance policy.  The complainant has not explained the cause for delay in intimating the death of the account holder in time.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The complainant has filed her affidavit.  Exs.A1 to A7 have been marked.  The Manager of the opposite party no.1 bank has filed his affidavit in support of the case of the opposite parties and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

5.     The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to furnish the claim form to the complainant and settle her claim as also that the complainant was declared entitled to the amount of Rs.one lakh with interest @ 7.5% thereon. 

6.     Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum had come to an erroneous conclusion that the complainant is entitled to the amount without even filing the claim form.  It was contended that the insurance company is proper and necessary party and in the absence of insurance company the claim cannot be decided by the District forum.

7.     The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?

8.     The complainant’s grand mother namely, Duggishetti Shishila Bai was the account holder bearing No.ABJ-3 with the opposite party no.1.  The passbook evidences the transactions by her with the opposite party no.1 bank.  The complainant’s grandmother died on 30.9.2004.  the copy of certificate of death issued by the Registrar of Births and deaths Warangal Municipal Corporation shows that the complainant’s grand mother Duggishetti Sushila Bai died on 30.9.2004 at Laskar Bazar, Hanamkonda.  The Complainants’ grand mother appointed the complainant as her nominee for the account with the opposite partyno.1.  A Copy of health declaration form submitted by her to the opposite party no.1 bank on 1.6.2004 supports the contention of the complainant that she is the nominee for the account. 

9.     The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant had not intimated the death of her grandmother.  He had submitted that the complainant has not lodged claim and filed the complaint without impleading the insurance company as party to the proceedings.  It is true that except the notice dated 7.8.2006 there is no other document on record to show that the complainant has furnished intimation of death of her grand mother to the opposite party no.1 bank.  Even as per the version of the complainant, she has not lodged claim.  The opposite party no.1 bank has taken a specific plea that the intimation of the death should be made within the prescribed time and so is the lodging of the claim.  The complainant has not intimated the death of her grand mother within 180 days as prescribed in this regard in terms of the passbook.  Equally, the complainant has not lodged any claim either with the opposite parties or with insurance company.  Admittedly, the complainant has not impleaded the insurance company with which the opposite party no.1 bank had tie up relating to the Andhra Bank Abhaya Savings Account of the complainant’s grandmother.  Yet, it is interesting to see the District Forum allowing the complaint on humanitarian and sympathetic grounds. 

        The complainant, even after the opposite parties had taken objection as to the non-impleading of the insurance company, had not taken any steps to implead the insurance company to the proceedings.  Without lodging any claim and proceeding against the opposite party no.1 bank for the sum assured under the insurance policy by the complainant is beyond the scope of any imagination.  The complainant to maintain the complaint has to base it on cause of action which herein is not at all found.  The District Forum ought not to have held the complainant entitled to the sum assured of Rs.one lakh with interest without there being any claim lodged by the complainant and violation if any, of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also in the absence of the insurance company as a party to the proceedings.  Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the District forum. 

        In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 23.5.2008 of the District Forum.  The complainant is at liberty to lodge her claim with the insurance company to be processed through the opposite party no.1 bank.  No costs.

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                    Dt.7.10.2010

Kmk*