This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 05-05-15 in the presence of Sri M.Sitaramdas, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.Jaya Raj, Advocate for opposite party,  upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay the  insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @ 24% p.a; Rs.15,000/- as damages and costs of Rs.10,000/-. 

2.      In nutshell the complaint averments are these:

One Yalavarthy Brahmam (husband of complainant) had SB account (Abhaya Gold) with the opposite party.  The said account was covered with accidental insurance benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The said Brahmam died on 17-09-12 in a motor vehicle accident.  The S.H.O, Ponnur (R) registered the said accident as Cr.No.136/2012 U/s.304 (A) I.P.C. and filed charge sheet before the 1^st Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Ponnur.  The complainant is nominee of the said account holder.  The complainant on 18-06-14 applied for accidental claim benefits and sent relevant documents by registered post.  The opposite party received the same on 21-06-14 and kept quite without any payment or reply or repudiation of claim.  The complainant also got issued legal notice on       05-09-14 to the opposite party who received it on 06-09-14.  The opposite parties had no courtesy even to give reply.  The complainant is an illiterate lady and village woman.  Due to the above attitude and behaviour of the opposite party the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially.  The complaint therefore may be allowed.         

3.      The contention of the opposite parties in brief is thus:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  One Yalavarthy Brahmam was holding an account (Abhaya Gold) with the 1^st  opposite party.  The insurance was available up to 30-11-2009 only.  As the insured had no balance in his account the insurance was not in force by the date of death of Yalavarthy Brahmam.  The account holder failed to maintain minimum balance from 01-04-09 to 31-03-2010.  The account holder maintained minimum balance from 01-04-10 to 31-03-11, 01-04-11 to    31-03-12, 01-04-12 to 31-03-13.  The opposite party is only collecting premium regularly if balance is available to renew the policy with M/s.India First Life Insurance Company Limited.  The head office of the opposite party on        22-11-13 issued circular for the insurance period commencing from 01-12-11 to 30-11-12 fixing premium as per age group.  Claim intimation is to be given within three months and submission of claim and documents within 180 days from the date of death of the account holder.  The opposite party did not commit any act amounting to deficiency in service.  The complaint therefore may be dismissed.   

4.       Exs.A-1 to A-12 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B1 to B-10 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are these:

1.       Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service?

2.       Whether the complainant is entitled to damages and if so to what

          amount?

3.       To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

       a).        Yalavarthi Brahmam had SB account with the opposite party bearing NO.043310027000184 (Ex.A-1).   

       b).        The opposite party provided accidental insurance coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account holder Yalavarthi Brahmam. 

       c).        The opposite party deducted premium towards insurance policy covering the period up to 30-11-09. 

7.      POINT No.1:-      The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the opposite party could not deduct insurance premium for want of minimum balance for the period from 01-04-09 to 31-03-10 and for want of requisite amount from 01-04-10 to 31-03-13.  The learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand contended that burden is on the opposite party to prove the same and it discharged its burden by summoning ledger extract of the account holder Yalavarthi Brahmam. 

8.      As per Ex.B-6 & B-8 insurance year commenced from 1^st December of every year and ended by end of November of subsequent year.  Ex.B-3 revealed that the opposite party deducted Rs.405/- on 30-11-04 towards insurance and service charge, Rs.405/- on 30-11-05 towards insurance and service charge and Rs.766/- on 30-11-06 towards insurance and service charge.  It can therefore be concluded that the period of insurance was from 1^st December to November of succeeding year. The opposite parties did not collect premium for the period commencing from 01-12-07 to 30-11-08 as seen from Ex-B3.     

9.      Ex.B-4 revealed that the opposite party deducted Rs.850/- on          29-11-08 towards insurance and service charge.  By that entry in Ex.A-4 the opposite party contended that the said account holder paid premium of insurance for the period commencing from 01-12-08 to 30-11-09. 

10.    Ex.B-4 further revealed that the opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.850/- on 04-03-10 towards insurance premium.  The opposite party has to explain why it deducted Rs.850/- on 04-03-10 and for which period as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainant.  The said account holder was having credit balance of Rs.1425/- on 07-03-11, Rs.1315/- on 22-03-11, Rs.1319/- on 04-04-11 Rs.3719/- on 22-07-11 Rs.1219/- on 25-07-11 Rs.1319/- on 07-10-11 Rs.3791/- on 13-10-11.  The account holder died on 17-09-12 in Government General Hospital, Guntur as seen from Ex.A-6. 

11.    The complainant addressed Ex.A-8 letter on 18-06-14 and sent it to the opposite party on 20-06-14 under registered post and the opposite party in turn received it on 21-06-14. The complainant also sent notice through advocate on 05-09-14 and the opposite party received it on 06-09-14.  The opposite party though a  public undertaking institution had no courtesy in the least to give reply to the complainant regarding further course of action. 

12.    In the absence of any cogent explanation from the opposite party for deducting Rs.850/- towards insurance premium  and service charge on        04-03-10 the contention of the complainant that the opposite party was deducting  insurance premium at  its discretion is having considerable force.  The said account holder died during the period of insurance commencing from 01-12-11 to 30-11-12.  The conduct of the opposite party in deducting premium on   04-03-10 and not deducting premium subsequently when credit balance was available and absence of reply to Ex.A-6 & A-8 in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency in service.  We therefore hold that the opposite party is liable to indemnify the complainant being nominee of its account holder.  In view of the discussion made supra we answer this point against the opposite party.              

13.    POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed Rs.15,000/- as damages towards mental agony.  The complainant herself claimed insurance amount more than 1½ year after the death of her husband.  Any how the complainant made her claim in time i.e., two years from the date of death of the account holder.  Under those circumstances awarding Rs.5,000/- as damages in our considered opinion will meet ends of  justice.  We therefore answer this point against the opposite party.     

14.    POINT NO.3:- In view of our above findings in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1.       The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment to the complainant.

2.       The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) as damages and Rs.2,000(Two thousand) as costs of the complaint to the complainant. 

3.       The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.    

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 12^th day of May, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party: 

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT 

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.