BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO.408 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.4 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, MAHABUBNAGAR
Between:
1) The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank, Mettuguda branch,
Mettuguda, Mahabubnagar.
2) The Manager, Andhra Bank,
Opp: Police Head Quarters,
Mahabubnagar.
…Appellants/Opposite parties
And
Smt.P.Kalavathi W/o late P.Ramulu,
Aged 51 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o H.No.1-4-183/B/A1,
Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar town.
…Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Kadudas Jagadish
Counsel for the Respondent : Admission stage
CORAM :
Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal … President
and
Sri K.Ramesh … Member
Tuesday, the Eleventh day of December
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order :
***
Opposite parties in CC No.4 of 2015 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Mahabubnagar filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 25.07.2017 directing them to pay to the Complainant the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the accidental insurance coverage to the account holders under the Abhaya Gold Savings Bank account and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/- granting time of one month.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that her husband by name P.Ramulu was holding savings bank account with Opposite party No.1 bank vide account No.12161001107 in the year 2006. The Opposite parties provided accidental insurance cover of Rs.1,00,000/- to all the account holders under Abhaya Gold, including P.Ramulu. To the misfortune of Complainant, her husband P.Ramulu met with an accident on 07.11.2011, at about 1730 hours, while he was proceeding to Nawabpet village on his Luna after crossing the Kakarlapad village, with one motorcycle bearing No.AP-22AD-7851 which came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, her husband sustained fatal injuries to head and died on 08.11.2011 while undergoing treatment.
4) The Complainant brought the factum of death of the account holder to the notice of the Opposite parties and made claim for payment of benefits covered by the policy by furnishing all the relevant documents. Though much considerable time elapsed, the Opposite parties failed to settle the claim and to the notice dated 21.06.2013 got issued by her, a reply is given on 24.06.2013 refuting the claim. In spite of repeated requests, the Opposite parties failed to settle the claim which amounts to negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint to direct the Opposite parties to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 36% p.a. from November 2011; to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mental agony; to pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
5) Though served with notice, the Opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to make their appearance and have not chosen to contest the case before the forum below.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the Complainant filed her evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A6.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.4/2015, by orders dated 25.07.2015, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
8) Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeal is preferred by the Appellants who are Opposite parties before the forum below contending that the factum of death/injury has to be informed to the Appellants within 90 days. It also failed to see that the Appellants only acts as a facilitator and settlement of claims is done by United India Insurance Company Ltd., hence, insurance company is proper and necessary party to the present proceedings. The forum below missed this aspect and came to wrong and erroneous conclusion.
9) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
10) It is not in dispute that the husband of the Respondent died accidentally and that he was holding account with the Appellants bank. It is also not in dispute that the account holder was covered under the policy issued by the Insurance Company.
11) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants who are Opposite parties in the forum below. The main grievance of the Appellants is that they could not make their appearance and file their written version in the forum below and hence the matter was disposed of ex parte and the complaint was allowed in part directing the Appellants/Opposite parties herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the accidental insurance coverage to the account holders under the Abhaya Gold Savings bank account and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.
12) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the interest of justice demands that the matter needs to be remanded to the Forum for fresh disposal on merits subject to condition that the Appellants/Opposite parties shall pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent/ Complainant. Accordingly, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the file of the District Forum for fresh disposal on merits by affording opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence and to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible. The District Forum shall proceed with the matter upon compliance of the above direction for payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent.
13) In the result, the appeal is allowed accordingly but in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 11.12.2018
