2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

    LIC of India, Divisional Office,

    Batchupet, Machilipatnam,

    Krishna District.                                              …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 11-04-11 in the presence of Sri V. Venkata Reddy, advocate for complainant and of              Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material on record and 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 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a sum of Rs.74,584/- (interest from           03-08-07 to 28-01-10 on Rs.2,50,000/- @ 12% pa.. and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for costs).

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        One Muppalla Lakshmi Rajyam W/o Muppalla Raghava Rao is daughter of complainant.  The said Lakshmi Rajyam obtained divorce on 31-10-05 in OP.66/03 on the file of the additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.   The said  Lakshmi Rajyam begot a son namely Kaushik Chowdary on 21-06-2000.  The said Lakshmi Rajyam filed MC.6/06 claiming maintenance for her minor son.   In order to avoid maintenance Muppalla Raghava Rao filed OP.156/06 on the file of the 3^rd additional District Judge, Guntur against his divorced wife.   MC.6/06 and OP.156/06 were dismissed in view of the death of the said Lakshmi Rajyam.    During her lifetime the said Lakshmi Rajyam obtained two insurance policies from the opposite parties making her mother Annapurnamma as a nominee.   The said Raghava Rao got issued notice to the opposite parties not to pay the policy amounts and other death benefits to the complainant or any nominee as he is the natural guardian.   Inspite of that notice the opposite party paid Rs.4,70,000/- to the nominee Annapurnamma.     From out of that amount Rs.4,00,000/- were deposited with the 1^st opposite party on 03-08-07 in the name of the minor Kaushik Chowdary.   The said Raghava Rao filed OP.180/07 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Court, Guntur against the complainant to handover the minor Kaushik Chowdary and IA 1459 of 2007 restraining the opposite parties herein and the Government Educational Department from paying death benefits to the claimants or the nominees.   Neither stay nor injunction was granted in IA 1459 of 2007.  The complainant herein filed OP.283/07 seeking appointment as guardian to the minor.  Both the petitions were disposed off on 10-08-09.  The complainant was appointed as guardian.  While so the nominee Annapurnamma of LIC policies issued a registered notice to the opposite parties on 11-03-08 requesting them to pay the amount due.  Even after furnishing copy of order in OP.283/07 the opposite party paid RS.2,50,000/- being balance of policy amount.   No interest was calculated on the said amount.  Therefore the complainant filed an application seeking interest on Rs.2,50,000/-. The opposite parties paid amount on                10-08-09.  With holding the amount even though in the absence of any restraint order from the Court amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

        The opposite parties have nothing to do with the disputes of the complainant either with his wife or son-in-law.   The 1^st opposite party was a party to IA 1459/07 and as such could not proceed in making payment.  In view of pendency of OPs 282/07 and 180/07 on the file of 1^st additional district court the 1^st opposite party could not make payment.   The 1^st opposite party paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 28-01-10 as the claimant submitted discharge form on that day only.  The opposite parties paid the amount promptly.   The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute.   The complaint therefore be dismissed as they did not commit any deficiency of service.

4. Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.B-1 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite party respectively.

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

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation towards mental agony?
4. To what relief?

6.   POINT No. 1:-   The complainant was appointed as guardian for the minor Muppalla Kaushik Chowdary both for person and property on 10-08-09 in HMGOP No.283/07 on the file of the 1^st Additional District Court while dismissing OP.180/07 filed by Muppalla Raghava Rao (father of the minor) as seen from Ex.A-5.  

7.    The complainant in his capacity filed the complaint on 17-03-10.   The office among other objections took the following objection “the wife of the complainant is a nominee, explain how the complainant is having locus standi to file this complaint”.   For the said objection the complainant represented with the following,

        “complainant appointed as a guardian to minor child by the District Court, Guntur order copy filed herewith”.  

8.     As seen from the said representation it appears to us that the complainant filed this complaint on behalf of his minor grand son.   But the complainant did not make the minor as a party to the complaint.   On the other hand, the complaint revealed that wife of the complainant namely Annapurnamma is a nominee.   It was not mentioned in the complaint whether the said Annapurnamma is alive or not.   The complainant averments revealed that the insured from out of her earnings took insurance policies.    The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter and the husband) as per section 15 (1) (a) of Hindu Succession Act.   In this case the insured died leaving behind his son Kaushik Chowdary and divorced husband.  Husband of the insured is not entitled to any share in the property of his wife as she obtained divorce prior to her death.   Nowhere in the complaint it was mentioned that this complaint was filed on behalf of his minor grandson.   Under those circumstances, the complainant did not come under the purview of Consumer as rightly contended by the opposite parties.   In view of he afore mentioned discussion, this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties.

9.   POINTS 2&3:-    It is the contention of the opposite parties that due to pendency of OPs before the 1^st Additional District Courts it could not pay the amount.   The relevant portion in para 7 of the version is extracted below for better appreciation:

        “This opposite party further submits that as per para 6 of petition under I.A.1459/07 HMGOP No.180/07, Sri M. Raghava Rao in the said petition before the Hon’ble 1^st Additional District Judge, Guntur I.A.No.1459/07, made the petitioner and Corporation with some other authorities as respondents, seeking direction to restrain payment of money by them to the complainant during the pendency of the petition before the Hon’ble Court.   Accordingly the Branch Manager of this opposite party, Vinukonda was summoned to appear before the Court on 31-08-08.   As the above petition was admitted in the Court, by giving a number, it tentamounts that it is a case fit for trail and to be decided upon the merits of the Hon’ble Court.   As such though the court had not passed any injunction orders restraining the Corporation from making payment to the complainant, the opposite party could not proceed in making payment during the pendency of the case before Court, as it was admitted or trail”. 

10.   The above averments clearly revealed that there were no prohibitory orders from paying the amount.  As rightly contended by the opposite party to avoid any further trouble did not make payment due to pendency of suit.  No doubt the opposite parties ought to have deposited the amount in the 1^st Additional District Court during the pendency of IA 1459 of 2007 in OP 180/07.    Not taking a lenient view in our considered opinion did not amount to deficiency of service.      Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.                   In view of the afore mentioned discussions, these points are answered in favour of the opposite party.  

11.   POINT No.4:-   In view of the above findings, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 27th day of April, 2011.

            Sd/-XXX                                                                  Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:        

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT