JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Amaresh against Opposites 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to make the payment of LIC amount pertaining to Policy Nos. 661283702, 661284500 and 661366516 total assured sum of Rs. 85,000/- with bonus interest and other benefits and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and cost of the litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, his father Kallingaswamy was an employee under opposite No-2, he purchased several LIC policies at his life time, among those policies three policies not settled. Kallingaswamy died on 02-08-03 thereafter his nominee Smt. Seetamma, his wife claimed the policy amount pertaining to three polices, but opposite No-1 not settled her claim, thereafter on 18-01-07 said Seetamma died leaving behind the complainant, Deepa Praveen and Laxmi as the legal heirs of Kallingaswamy. All of them have requested to settle the claim amount to opposite No-1, but opposite No-1 LIC not settled their claim as some premiums amount of the said policies not paid by opposite No-2 employer of Kallingaswamy. Opposite No-1 shown its negligence in settling his claim, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. <br /> <br /> 3. Opposite No-1 LIC appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is contended that opposite No-2 employer has not sent premiums amount of the said three policies. It requested the complainant and others to take necessary steps make the payment of due amount of the premiums and also it requested to opposite No-2 make the payment, but none of them have not taken steps to make such payment, all other allegations made by the complainant have been specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint as there was no deficiency in its service.<br /> <br /> 4. Opposite No-2 filed written version by contending that, it paid regular payments in respect of all LIC policies of Kallingaswamy. It denied other allegations with regard to non payment of premiums, some premiums not deducted as there was no sufficient earning of Kallingaswamy to recover the amount, there is no negligence on its part and not violated any terms and conditions of the LIC policy, hence it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, himself and Deepa, Praveen and Laxmi are the only legal heirs of Kalingaswamy and thereby they are entitled to get the policy amount, bonus accrued interest etc., in respect of policy Nos. 66128372, 661284500 and 661366516 but opposite No-1 LIC shown its negligence in settling the claim and thereby it found guilty under deficiency in its service.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager Legal of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. Documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-6 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of Executive Director of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and one document was marked as Ex.R-1.<br /> <br /> 8. On consideration of the pleadings of the complainant at Para-2 and his affidavit-evidence PW-1 it shows that he is claiming himself, Deepa, Praveen and Laxmi are the legal heirs of Kallingaswamy and thereby this complaint is filed by one of the legal heir for to claim the accrued amount under three policies.<br /> <br /> 9. It is undisputed fact that policy subscriber Kallingaswamy died on 02-08-03 leaving behind nominee Smt. Seetamma who is his wife, that means to say that said Smt. Seetamma was entitled to claim the accrued amount of the said three policies, after the death of her husband Kallingaswamy as the nominee under the said policies. But the said Smt. Seetamma not claimed the said policies amount at her life time or otherwise not claimed. Now the nominee Smt. Seetamma dead thereafter this complaint is filed by Amaresh calling himself as he is the legal heir of Kallingaswamy. In support of this claim the complainant relied on document at Ex.P-14 which is the Family Certificate issued by opposite No-2 H.G.M. Company. In the said letter wife of Kallingaswamy Smt. Seetamma, Deepa, Amaresh, Praveen and Laxmi are shown as the members of the family of Kallingaswamy, except this document, no other documents filed by the complainant to show that including Smt. Seetamma, all of them are the legal heirs of deceased Kallingaswamy. Now the fact is that, the wife of deceased Kallingaswamy by name Smt. Seetamma is also no more, then how the complaint is telling that himself, Deepa, Praveen and Laxmi are the only legal heirs of deceased Smt. Seetamma, succession after the death of Kalingaswamy differs to the succession after the death of Seetmma, this complainant and other cannot claim by virtue of Ex.P-14, as they are the only legal heirs of the Smt. Seetamma. In view of the complicated question of succession that would arise to decide the legal heirs of Kallingaswamy and Smt. Seetmma, complainant cannot claim that himself, Deepa, Praveen and Laxmi are the only legal heirs of deceased Kalingaswamy and deceased Seetmma for to entitle the entire accrued amount of the three policies, without proper enquiry under raw, we cannot make such enquiry for to decide the legal heirs of Kallingaswamy and legal heirs of Seetamma as we have no jurisdiction to do it. The proper court to make enquiry and to decide those complicated legal issues is only by Civil Court, hence document Ex.P-14 is not a proper document to accept the case of complainant that himself and others are the legal heirs of deceased Kallingaswamy and deceased Smt. Seetamma as they are only persons to entitle to get the accrued amount under the said three policies.<br /> <br /> 10. Other contention of the complainant with regard to payment or non payment of premium amount of the said three policies by opposite No-2 and allegations made against opposite No-1 LIC are not the ground to consider this claim of the complainant, accordingly we have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1. Hence we answered Point No-1 in negative. <br /> <br /> 11. The complainant failed to prove the fact involved in Point No-1 and thereby he is not entitled for to get any one of the relief’s as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 12. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 12-01-10)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />