BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Friday the 01st day of October , 2010
C.C.No 68/09
Between:
N.Uma Devi, W/o Late Raja Gopal Reddy,
H.No.13-13/5, Nethaji Road, R/o. Koilakuntla (V) and (M), Kurnool District-518 123.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Incharge, M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Inasurance Co.,Ltd.,
Shop NO.10, 11,13, Alankar Plaza,D.No.40/356/A,IIIrd floor,
Kurnool -518 002.(Amended as per order in I.A.152/09 dated 18-06-2009)
2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Inasurance Co., Ltd., Rep., by its Deputy Manager for T.P. Claims,Regional Office,
Macmet Building,10-B, O.C.Ganguly Sarani,Kolkata-700 020.
…Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. A. Rama Subba Reddy , Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri. A.V.Subramanayam, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 68/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- payable under policy bearing OG-05-
2401-9960- 00000041 and interest of Rs.32,000/- for two years and compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant .
(b) to grant future interest @ 18% p.a from the date of complaint
till the date of realization.
(c) to grant costs of the complaint.
(d) to grant such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the wife of Late N. Raja Gopal Reddy who became a member in Golden Multi Service Club of Golden Trust Financial Services. The complainants husband obtained insurance policy from OP.No.2 through Golden Multi Service Club of Golden Trust Financial Service. The policy was inforce from 30-05-2005 to 29-10-2010. The policy covers the accidental risk up to Rs.1,00,000/-. Raja Gopal Reddy died in the road accident on 10-04-2007. The complainant is the nominee under the policy bearing No. OG-05-2401-9960-00000041 obtained by her husband. After the death of Raja Gopal Reddy the complainant submitted claim form to the OPs. On 19-06-2008 OP.No.2 sent a letter to the complainant rejecting the claim stating that the proposal form for the policy was not signed by Late N. Raja Gopal Reddy. The rejection of the claim of the complainant is arbitrary. There is deficiency of service in rejecting the claim. Hence the complaint.
3. OP.No.1 ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainants husband obtained the policy through Golden Multi Club of Golden Trust Financial Services and that the said policy covers the risk up to Rs.1,00,000/- . The claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that the proposal forms are not signed by Late N. Raja Gopal Reddy. The alleged signature of the deceased in the proposal form differed with his signatures on his pan card and driving license. The expert also gave finding that the signatures in the proposal form is not that of the deceased life assured N. Raja Gopal Reddy . The proposal form is not signed by Raja Gopal Reddy. The policy was obtained by fraud and by misrepresentation. The complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1to B6 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether the consumer forum can enquire into the dispute involved in this case ?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Points No.1 & 2 :- Admittedly N. Raja Gopal Reddy husband of the complainant obtained the policy bearing No. OG-05-2401-9960-00000041 from OP.No.2 through Golden Multi Services Club of Golden Trust Financial Services . The said policy covers the accidental risk up to Rs.1,00,000/- . The period of the policy is from 30-05-2005 to 29-10-2010. Ex.A1= B1 is the policy. It stands in the name of N. Raja Gopal Reddy . The complainant is the nominee under the said policy.
8. It is the case of the complainant that her husband died on 10-04-2007 in a road accident . To prove the same the complainant filed Ex.A2 copy of the FIR in Cr.No.22/07 of Koilakuntla PS and Ex.A3 photo copy of the inquest report. As seen from Ex.A2 it is very clear that the station house officer, Koilakuntla PS registered a case Cr.No.22/07 U/S 304 IPC on the basis of the report given by Rama Subba Reddy . In Ex.A2 it is clearly mentioned that on 10-04-2007 while Raja Gopal Reddy was proceeding on his motor cycle in APSRTC bus given by its driver dashed against the motor cycle on which Raja Gopal Reddy was proceeding near Kistapadu (v). In Ex.A3 inquest report also it is mentioned that Raja Gopal Reddy died due to the injuries received in road accident. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased Raja Gopal Reddy due to the accident.
9. Admittedly after the death of Raja Gopal Reddy the complainant who is a nominee under the policy submitted the claim to OP.No.2 . OP.No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant by his letter dated 19-06-2008 (Ex.A4=B3) As seen from Ex.A4 it is very clear that the claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that the proposal form was not signed by the deceased Raja Gopal Reddy and that the policy was obtained by mis representation . OP.No.2 relied on opinion of the hand writing expert by name Rajakanthdas . The handwriting expert in his opinion in Ex.B2 stated that the disputed signature is not from the hand of the writer of the admitted signatures . It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.No.2 that as there is dispute regarding the genuineness of the signature of the assured in the proposal form elaborate enquiry is required and this forum can not adjudicate the dispute involved . In support of its contention the learned counsel appearing for OP.No.2 relied a decision reported in I (2005) CPJ 113 . In the said decision The Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Chennai held that the genuineness of signature can be decided only by Civil Court where alone elaborate evidence can be adduced for and against the same. The dispute involved in the case cited above and the dispute in the present case on hand are one and the same. In the present case on hand the OP is questioning the genuineness of the signature of the assured . To come to the conclusion it is necessary to examine the expert. The complainant must have an opportunity to cross examine the expert. If the original proposal does not contain the signature of the deceased certainly the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Unless it is established that the proposal form is signed by the Raja Gopal Reddy ,the complainant is not entitled to the benefits under the policy. As already stated elaborate enquiry has to be made on the point whether the proposal form was singed by the deceased or not. The said enquiry can not be done in consumers forum in view of the decision cited above. The decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the OP.No.2 is applicable to the facts of the present case . The genuineness of the signature on the proposal form has to be enquired into . We are of the opinion that it can be done by proper Civil Court . Much evidence has to be adduced by both sides to decide the genuineness of the signature on the proposal form. The said enquiry can not be done by this forum.
10. In the result the complaint is dismissed . In the circumstances no costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 01st day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of policy No. 0G-05-2401-9960-00000041.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.22/2007 , Koilakuntla ,P.S
Ex.A3. Photo copy of inquest report.
Ex.A4. Claim of rejection letter dated 19-06-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Policy No. 0G-05-2401-9960-00000041.
Ex.B2. Document expert opinion dated 12-06-2008.
Ex.B3. Claim of rejection letter dated 19-06-2008.
Ex.B4. Photo copy of policy proposal form.
Ex.B5. Photo copy of PAN card and driving license of deceased life assured .
Ex.B6. Photo copy of driving license of N. Raja Gopal Reddy .
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
