A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 555/2006 against C.D. 310/1997, Dist. Forum, Nizamabad.
Between:
The Divisional Manager
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
APSFC Building, Subhashnagar
Nizamabad. *** Appellant/ Opposite Party
And
Smt. T. Vasantha
W/o. Late T. Sudhakar Reddy
Age: 22 years, Housewife,
R/o. Damannapet Village
Presently residing at
H.No. 6-2-174, Subashnagar
Nizamabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Katta Lakshmi Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Y. S. Yellanand Gupta
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company against the order of the Dist. Forum, Nizamabad in directing it to pay the amount covered under the policy with interest and costs.
The case of the complainant in brief is that she is the wife of late T. Sudhakar Reddy to whom the appellant has issued Janata Accident Policy (JAP) under cover note No. 326 for Rs. 3 lakhs after collecting a premium of Rs. 150/-. The policy was in force from 3.5.1996. While so he died on 5.5.1996, he having been murdered by naxalities, a case in Crime No. 17/1996 u/s. 302 IPC of P.S. Dharapally. She being the wife of the deceased entitled to receive the amount. When she requested to pay the amount the same was refused. Therefore, she prayed that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs covered under the policy be paid together with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
The appellant insurance company resisted the case. It alleged that the insured was kidnapped by naxalites on 28.4.1996, and kept in their custody for seven days, and murdered him on 5.5.1996 evidenced from the record of the police. Therefore, there was no chance for him to attend its office, and submit the proposal. It must have been forged by a third party. Sri Ramesh Reddy, brother of the deceased along with other interested persons approached the opposite party, suppressed the material facts, filled up the proposal form by himself, noted the particulars of the deceased and later claimed compensation. He was aware that his brother was in the hit list. He paid the amount mischievously suppressing the material facts. This amounts to mis-representation and cheating. She has no right to claim the amount covered under the policy. In fact his father was the nominee who made the claim. Since there was fraudulent submission of proposal form by impersonation the claim was repudiated. She was not entitled to any amount. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit evidence and filed copy of premium receipt Dt. 3.5.1996 , report of SHO, P.S. Dharapally Dt. 5.5.1996. The opposite party did not file any document.
The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that opposite party has accepted the proposal, received the premium on 3.5.1996, and was liable to pay the amount covered under the policy. Accordingly it directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint till realization with costs of Rs. 350/-.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that there was no proof that the assured came to the office applied for insurance policy and paid premium. It could not be possible as he was in the custody of naxalities from 28.4.1996 to 5.5.1996. His brother Ramesh Reddy by impersonation applied and obtained the policy. It was void-ab-initio. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed by dismissing the complaint. Along with appeal, it filed copy of FIR in Crime No. 19/2003 Dt. 17.2.2003 registered on the complaint issued by the appellant insurance company, and a copy of Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1058/2003 filed by Sri Ramesh Reddy on the file of High Court of A.P. for quashing the FIR.
It is an admitted fact that late T. Sudhakar Reddy, husband of the complainant was holder of JAP policy Dt. 3.5.1996 evidenced under cover note No. 326 issued on 3.5.1996 for Rs. 3 lakhs. It was valid from 3.5.1996 to 2.5.1997. The appellant passed a receipt Dt. 3.5.1996 on receipt of premium of Rs. 150/- towards insurance policy mentioning its particulars. It is also not in dispute that on 5.5.1996 T. Sudhakar Reddy was killed by naxalities, basing on which a case in Crime No. 17/1996 u/s 365, 506 IPC was registered by P.S. Dharapally against unknown PWG Radicals. It was a suo-moto case registered by the SHO, Darapally Police Station.
It seems that his father was the nominee who made the claim, however, the same was repudiated. On that his wife filed the case for recovery of the amount covered under the policy, she being class-I heir.
The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the proposer could not have come to the office, filled up the proposal form and pay Rs. 150/- towards policy on 3.5.1996, he being in the custody of naxalities from 28.4.1996 to 5.5.1996 for a period of seven days. His brother one Ramesh Reddy impersonated his brother having fully aware of the fact that his brother was in the hit list, suspected that he would be killed. He impersonated, signed on behalf of his brother, paid the amount and obtained the policy. This amounts to fraudulent mis-representation. Therefore, they were not liable to pay any amount.
At the outset, it may be stated that for the reasons best known, the insurance company did not file proposal form. Had it been filed, it would have known as to the date of submission of the proposal form by the deceased, and the agent who received the said proposal, and his recommendation thereon.
Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the proposal might have been made by the very T. Sudhakar Reddy prior to his kidnap. Only on acceptance of the proposal form, the amount was paid.
It is not in dispute that the premium could be paid by any person on behalf of the insured. When an amount of Rs. 150/- was paid, the very insurance company passed the receipt on 3.5.1996. There was no mention that the proposer himself has paid the amount. Though the appellant alleges that he was under hit list and his brother might have impersonated, no evidence, whatsoever was placed in order to prove the same. It was alleged that one Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, Retired Additional Inspector General of Police who investigated into the matter mentioned all these facts, the said report
was not filed. For the non-submission of the report, an adverse inference has to be drawn against its case. At this juncture, we may also state that in the report given by the police it was mentioned that Sri Sudhakar Reddy, a Telugu Desam Party worker was kidnapped, while he was going to Nizamabad in a car after attending party meeting by the unknown PWG Radicals at Timmapaly. Therefore the contention that he was in the hit list etc. was only a figment of imagination not substantiated by any evidence.
Obviously, as the insurance company has no evidence whatsoever to substantiate its defence of impersonation by his signature, forging signature etc., for the first time, they gave a report to the police on 17.2.2003 subsequent to the order of the Dist. Forum directing the insurance company to pay the said amount evidently this procedure is adopted to get over the order of Dist. Forum. In the report it was alleged that T. Ramesh Reddy, brother of the deceased along with one D. Dasharath Goud came to its office on 3.5.1996 along with some other persons with the proposal of Thummala Sudhakar Reddy and paid Rs. 150/- towards insurance premium. Later they came to learn that T. Sudhakar Reddy was kidnapped on 28.4.1996 and was killed on 5.5.1996 which was fully investigated by Sri M. V. Subba Reddy, Retired Additional Inspector General of Police. Since Ramesh Reddy has impersonated Sudhakar Reddy and obtained the policy by forging the signature directed the police to take action against Ramesh Reddy, Dasarath Goud and his associates. Basing on the complaint the police registered a case in Crime No. 19/2003 on 17.2.2003 u/s 419,420, 468 of I.P.C. On that Ramesh Reddy filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1058/2003 before the High Court of A.P. u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.
Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to some of the averments made in the Criminal Misc. Petition contended that his brother and others had cheated the insurance company in order to get some amount illegally. We have gone through the above material. What all it was stated was after the Dist. Forum awarded the amount and when a penalty petition was filed for compliance, the appellant has filed the FIR, suppressing the real facts only to harass them. It was mentioned at para -5
“It is further stated that the 1st respondent (LIC) herein could have filed an appeal in the proper Court of law. Instead of preferring appeal the 1st respondent has filed complaint with a malafide intention to withdraw the penalty petition. The proposer can send his proposal form to the respondent along with payment when he was alive as such the question of personally attending before the 1st respondent or not does not arise in any aspect. When the policy is in force from 3.5.1996 to 2.5.1997 he was murdered on 5.5.1996 by the naxalities during the force of the policy as such malafide intention, impersonation, cheating does not arise. “
“It is further submitted that 1st respondent has failed to see that at the time of proposal he was alive and the proposer can submit his proposal personally or through any person. Moreover, the 1st respondent has been issuing all policies basing the documents, proposal form and payment without personal presence of any proposer, if any procedure is laid down they should have produced their record along with personal attendance of the proposers and maintenance of their procedure before the court of Law as such the question of presence of proposer does not arise. When the personal presence is not required to get policy, the question of cheating, impersonation, malafide intention does not arise in any aspect. “
A bare reading of above paras does not in any way show that there was admission of impersonation, forgery, fraud etc. The contention that was taken by Ramesh Reddy in his Criminal Misc. Petition was to quash the FIR lodged by the appellant. It would in no way show that he has admitted that he has signed the proposal form or paid the amount. When the appellant suspected that Ramesh Reddy was instrumental in getting the insurance policy by impersonation etc. it ought to have issued notice immediately after receipt of report from the investigator or when the very complaint was filed. Obviously, in order to circumvent the order obtained by the complainant from the Dist. Forum, the appellant has adopted this tactics. Absolutely, there is no merit in the subsequent complaint made to the police or proceedings taken in this regard.
To sum up, the appellant has issued a valid insurance policy covering the risk of late Sudhakar Reddy. Having suppressed the proposal form, it cannot turn round and contend that brother of the assured had impersonated and forged his signature. We were not convinced with the arguments in this regard. The subsequent proceedings were taken only to get over the order passed by the Dist. Forum. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. We may add herein that an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest was deposited as per the orders of National Commission Dt. 23.4.2004. However, out of said amount an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant which was awarded towards costs. Therefore, the appellant is directed to pay the balance amount. as directed by the Dist. Forum together with costs awarded by us. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt. 27. 10. 2008.
