Date of filing:28.10.2013

Date of disposal:18.09.2014      

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.

PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)

Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member

Thursday, the 18^th day of September, 2014

C.C.No.145/2013

Between:

1.       Smt.Lakshminarayanamma,

          W/o Late V.Chenna Reddy.

2.       V.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,

          S/o Late V.Chenna Reddy.

3.       V.Devendra Reddy,

          S/o Late V.Chenna Reddy.

4.       V.Lakshmi Devi,

          D/o Late V.Chenna Reddy,

          All are residing at Ramarajupalli Village,

          Pamidi Mandal,

          Ananthapuramu District.                    …                              Complainants

Vs.

1.      The Branch Manager,

        Andhra Bank, Main Road, Pamidi,

        Ananthapuramu District.

2.      The Divisional Manager,

        United India Insurance Company Limited,

        Bancassurance Division, D.O.IV,

        7^th Floor, United India Towers,

        Basheerbagh,

        Hyderabad.                                                    …                   Opposite Parties

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Venkata Giri, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Dasari Sreedhar, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and Sri V.Krishna Sarma, Advocate for the 2^nd Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties         1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards  death benefit under the policy, Rs.25,000/- towards negligence and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that: - This complaint is filed by the complainants stating that the 1^st opposite party is the bank formed in the name and style Andhra Bank being nationalized bank and having branches all over India, among which one is at Pamidi Town.  The said Bank branch is a lead bank in the complainant’s area.  The 1^st complainant is the wife of one V.Chenna Reddy and the complainants                      2 to 4 are their children.  The said V.Chenna Reddy opened a savings bank account  during his life time i.e., Abhaya Gold account  vide A/c No.042210025000202 with the 1^st opposite party bank it covers an accidental insurance to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/- which is the group insurance policy.  The 1^st opposite party used to deducting the premium every year from the account of V.Chenna Reddy and the same has been paying to the 2^nd opposite party towards insurance coverage.   The husband of the complainant i.e., V.Chenna Reddy was murdered on 31.12.2012 by his brothers due to land dispute and the same was registered as crime No.115/2012 dt.31.12.2012 by Pamidi Police.  The 1^st complainant submitted that her husband has no previous grudges or rivalry or not political disputes with anybody and the said incident was takes place in the year 2012 and he opened his bank account with the 1^st opposite party in the year 1997 and hence the murder also treated as an accidental one. Hence the complainants are eligible to claim the death benefit as the legal heirs of late V.Cheena Reddy.  After death of the policyholder the complainants made personal requests with the opposite parties but they have not settle the claim. On 04.07.2013 the 2^nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 1^st opposite party stating that planned murder falls under the exclusions of the policy and hence the claim is not payable and repudiated the claim.  It is further submitted that the 2^nd opposite party come to a conclusion that it is a planned murder.  In fact no person made plans to murder for himself.  Even though by knowing this fact the 2^nd opposite party bluntly repudiated the claim. The complainants also got issued legal notice on 17.09.2013 to the opposite parties and the same was served and the                   1^st opposite party reply with vague allegations on 03.10.2013.  The complainants are legal heirs Late V.Chenna Reddy and they are entitled the claim with interest and other reliefs.

3.       The 1^st opposite party filed counter by denying the relationship of the complainants with the deceases as the complainants are put to strict proof of the same by producing succession certificate from competent court.  The 1^st opposite party submits that the husband of the 1^st complainant by name V.Chenna Reddy opened a savings bank account i.e., Abhaya Gold Account vide account No.042210025000202 with this opposite party which covers an additional insurance amount to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- under the said account which is  a group insurance policy is not at all true and correct. In fact the assured amount is only Rs.1,00,000/-.  The 1^st opposite party also stated that about the deducting the premium from the account of Late V.Cheena Reddy and the same was paying to the 2^nd opposite party towards insurance premium is true and correct.  The 1^st opposite party submitted that this opposite party never committed default in adjusting the premium amount to the 2^nd opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party submitted that the husband of the 1^st complainant by name V.Chenna Reddy was murdered on 31.12.2012 by his brothers due to land dispute and a case was registered under crime No.115/2012 dt.31.12.2012 by Pamidi Police is true and correct.  The 1^st opposite party submitted that the contention of the complainants clearly reveals that the policyholder was murdered by his own brothers as there were land dispute between them since longtime. It clearly reveals the deceased has got enmity and rivalry with his family members since longtime.  The 1^st opposite party stated that due to the 1^st opposite party only to collect the amount and remit the same to                                 2^nd opposite party as a facilitator  between the  deceased and 2^nd opposite party and this opposite party submit claim forms to 2^nd opposite party immediately after receipt of  letter from the complainant  and this opposite party discharged his obligation in this regard and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and other transactions i.e., sending  of letters  which was address to him by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party has repudiated the claim and the complainants are not entitled any claim as alleged in the complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party.

4.       The 2^nd opposite party filed counter stating that the allegations in the complaint that the deceased V.Chenna Reddy was having Abhaya Gold Savings  Bank Account for year 2012-13 and also paid premium to cover the accidental risk of the deceased with the 1^st opposite party is to be proved by the complainants.  This opposite party also issued policy covering the risk of the deceased with the 1^st opposite party as alleged in the complaint is to be proved by the complainants.  This opposite party submitted that as seen from the reply notice dt.03.10.2013 issued on behalf of 1^st opposite party, it is mentioned that the deceased was not hold S.B.Account No.042210025000202 under Abhaya Gold Account in Andhra Bank, Pamidi Branch and not covered accidental death benefit.  The allegation in the complaint the deceased died accidentally and the murder is also come under accidental death and the complainants are entitle the claim is absolutely not correct and the complainants are not entitled any amount and the public records i.e., FIR, Charge Sheet, Inquest Report clearly reveals that the death of the deceased is a planned murder and there is rivalry between the deceased and his brothers with regard to the land property.  The 2^nd opposite party submitted that as seen from all the public records, including the complaint given by one of the sons of deceased  clearly reveals that there is an enemity with the deceased and his brothers  with regard to the land property and there was a quarrel between the deceased and his brothers  at one time, while his brothers  were making efforts  to construct structures  in the disputed land and at that time his brothers also warned the deceased saying that if the deceased obstruct them they will kill him.   The records also reveals that the deceased also filed a suit against the brothers in Gooty Court and the same was pending.  All these clearly reveals that there is longstanding enemity with the deceased and his brothers and the deceased was anticipating threat to his life his brothers.  Thus the murder of the deceased is not an accidental one as alleged in the complaint. Thus the death of the deceased clearly falls under the exclusives of the alleged policy which do not come under the preview of the terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants. The                                 2^nd opposite party also submitted that there is abnormal delay in intimating to the company about the death of the deceased clear violation of one of the conditions of the policy and this opposite party submitted that the insurance company made it clear that planned murder falls under the exclusion of the policy. Hence nothing is payable to the claimants and the claim is rightly repudiated and valid grounds and the complainants are very well aware of this fact and knowingly filed the present complaint in order to get wrongful gain from the public institution and there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party and claim made by the complainants is excessive and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5.       Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the death of the policyholder is to be treated as murder or accidental death?

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?

1. To what relief?

6.       In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and no documents are marked. On behalf of the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 & 2 documents.

7.       Heard both sides.

8.       There is no dispute with regard to the husband of the 1^st complainant by name V.Chenna Reddy opened Bank account with the 1^st opposite party i.e., Abhaya Gold account vide A/c No.042210025000202 and the 1^st opposite party Bank used to remit the amount from the account of V.Chenna Reddy towards premium and used to pay the same to 2^nd opposite party i.e., the Insurance Company and the sum assured for the above said account is Rs.1,00,000/- towards death of the account holder, but not Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in complaint .  The complainant filed pass book of V.Chenna Reddy under Ex.A1 issued by the 1^st opposite party shows that the deceased was having account with the 1^st opposite party Bank and the 1^st opposite party debited an amount of Rs.70/-towards premium on 31.10.2012 and the death of the policyholder was occurred on 31.12.2012 within policy period both the opposite parties have not denied about the existing of the policy by the date of death of the policyholder.   The crucial accept in the present case is about the death of the policyholder.  The 1^st complainant says that her husband was murdered by his brothers on 31.12.2012 while herself and her husband going to fields the brothers of V.Chenna Reddy attacked and killed him with deadly weapons.  The counsel for the complainants stated that a crime was registered under section 302 I.P.C. in crime No.115/2012 with Pamidi P.S.  The counsel for the complainants stated that  after the death of the policyholder immediately the complainants submitted claim forms to 1^st opposite party to settle the claim and the                          1^st opposite party stated in the counter that the said all claims send to 2^nd opposite party immediately and the 2^nd opposite party not settled the claim and repudiated the claim on the ground that the death of the policyholder is not an accidental death and it is a murder, murder is not comes under the policy and it is an exclusion clause in the policy.  The complainants stated that when the claim not settled the complainants got issued legal notice on 17.09.2013 under Ex.A7 to 1^st opposite party and the 1^st opposite party replied when vague allegations on 03.10.2013 Ex.A8. Hence the complainants are force to file the present complaint claiming compensation and mental agony and other benefits.  The 1^st opposite party admitted about the opening of account of one V.Chenna Reddy and denied about the insurance coverage of Rs.1,50,000/- it is only  Rs.1,00,000/- will paid towards insurance.

9.       The opposite parties 1 & 2 argued that F.I.R. Ex.A2 clearly shows that there is a land dispute between the deceased and his brothers since 1985 and Civil Suit is pending in Gooty Court.  The brothers of the deceased planned to kill the policyholder under the guise of land dispute it clearly shows that the brothers of policyholder murdered him with a preplan and hence the complainants are not entitled any claim as death was not an accidental death it is a murder and the murder comes within the exclusions clause of policy. When we go through Ex.A2 F.I.R. it was mentioned that the complaint was given by the son of the deceased that there is a land dispute between his father and brothers of his father.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that the in the complaint and F.I.R. the complainants mentioned that the deceased was murdered his own brothers.  When we go through F.I.R. the son of the deceased was given statement to police that his father and his brothers were divided in the year 1985 and they are living separately, and in the F.I.R. it is also mentioned that his father and his brothers purchased a land to an extent of 90 cents jointly near highway and one of the brothers of his father prepared pass book in his favour and got registered the land without knowing to the deceased and the same was questioned by the deceased and himself. Then the elders advised the deceased to fight it in Civil Court as per advice of elders the deceased filed Civil Suit in Gooty Court.  The arguments of the opposite parties are not considered because the opposite parties stated there is enemity between the deceased and his brothers since 1985, no whisper about dispute between brother since 1985 either in F.I.R. or charge sheet filed by the police.  The F.I.R. and charge sheet clearly shows that the murder was occurred when the brothers of the deceased received summons from the Civil Court filed by the deceased.  Then the brothers attacked the husband of the        1^st complainant and they killed him.  When we go through the charge sheet the police never stated that there is prior rivalry between the deceased and his brothers and it is also not mentioned that either any criminal case was pending between the deceased and his brothers.  In charge sheet, F.I.R. and Inquest clearly shows that only one month prior to the death there is dispute with regard to the land i.e., 90 cents when the brothers of the deceased got registered the said 90 cents of land in their favour without knowing to deceased that though the deceased having right over the property then only the deceased and his son went to the dispute land and questioned the same with his brothers.  When the brothers of the deceased warn him then the deceased went to police station to register the crime but returned as the police informed it is not a criminal case and file a case in Civil Court.  The entire public records does not show any prior motive or intention in the minds of accused to kill the deceased. 

10.     The 2^nd opposite party argued that after the claim they made enquiry and in the enquiry the investigator found that the death of the policyholder is not an accidental death and it was a murder, hence the 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim under Ex.A6.  We through the report of the investigator which is marked as Ex.B1 the investigator mentioned that one two months back insured known that without his permission the 90 cents of land registered his younger brother i.e., Suryanarayana Reddy’s wife name this registration supported  by remaining two brothers.  Insured lodged a complaint before Gooty Court one month back against his brothers.  On 31.12.2012 the insured attended the court, and while he returned to his house his brothers and some other followers attacked him near the house of the insured with rock stones and rod and wood sticks and the investigator also mentioned that the accident occurred only one month back.  In the report it is also mentioned that the deceased and his brothers separated in the year 1985 and they are living separately.  The investigator also mentioned in the report that the police and doctor confirmed the murder and the death of the insured due to planned murder.  The report of the investigator is not supported by any affidavit and moreover the observations made by the  investigatory report is not considerable because neither doctor nor police declared that it is planed murder and death was caused due to murder only.

11.     The counsel for complainants argued that the V.Chenna Reddy is having account with the 1^st opposite party Bank since 1997 and the deceased is not having any enemity with any one including his brothers during his life time.  The counsel for the complainants also stated that the death of the deceased is murder but it is not a preplanned murder it is only an accidental murder. 

12.     The counsel for the 2^nd opposite party relying a decision reported in IV (2000) SLT 179 between Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited. The 2^nd opposite party stated that in the above said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly explained the difference between a murder which is not an accidental and murder which is an accident alone it, depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder i.e., in our opinion if the dominant intention of the act of felony is kill any particular person then such killing is not an accident murder but is a murder simplicitor. The Hon’ble Supreme Court differentiated between the murder and accidently one. The case in hand there is no prior meeting of minds and there is no motive or intention kill the deceased by the accused all the public documents  clearly reveals that there is no prior intention on the minds of accused to kill the deceased.  We gone through the paper publication filed by the 2^nd opposite party it was mentioned in it that the deceased filed a Civil Suit before Gooty Court and the Hon’ble Court issued summons to the brothers of the deceased to appear.  Then only the brothers of the deceased got grave and sudden provocation to kill the deceased.  Hence we are of the opinion that there is no motive or intention on the minds of the accused to kill the deceased it is an accidental one. If the murder was occurred without any motive or intention and it is only an accidental one to consider the act of murder there must be motive or intention to kill particular person, if that was not established there is any previous enemity between the parties it shall be treated as accidental murder because it is not a preplanned murder.  The counsel for the complainant filed a decision reported in F.A.270/2003 on the file of Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad between Smt. Padmvathi Versus the Manager, Andhra Bank and another in the above case the Hon’ble State Commission held that murder is also an accident and it relates deficiency of service and it is a settled legal preposition that murder is also accident and the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount.

13.     We are also relying a decision reported in 2013 F.ANo.26/12 LIC versus Chinta Reddy Sarujamma  in the above case though there is rivalry  between two groups when there is  no clinching evidence or circumstances that there was faction between the deceased life assured and the accused of the murder case, it is not amount murder. The above decisions are similar to that of the case in hand there is no believable evidence that murder was intentional so the judgment of Supreme Court in Rita Devi case is not supported the case of 2^nd opposite party and no whisper in the documents that the deceased life assured was aggressor and that he picked up quarrel with his brothers and that immediate cause of injury or murder was his deliberate and willful acts.  More over the life assured has not opened the account with the 1^st opposite party under the guise that he may be kill by someone.  The 1^st opposite party who used to facilitate the account holders of Abhya Gold that if the holders of account paid nominal fee through the 1^st opposite party the risk of account holders will be insured for Rs.1,00,000/-. We are of the opinion that the decision submitted by the 2^nd opposite party does not attracted to the present case and the facts supported the case of the complainants. We are of the opinion that the homicide is an accidental death.   Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.

14.     POINT No.2: -        The complainants stated that without any valid grounds the opposite parties repudiated the claim in which the complainants are entitled legally and on the ground for repudiation is also not valid.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 acted negligently and not render service properly though they received consideration as a premium from the deceased and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The 1^st opposite party stated that the duty of the 1^st opposite party ends after remitting the premium from the account of the deceased life assured and after sending the same to 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party also argued that the 1^st opposite party discharges his duties immediately when the complainants made a claim before the 1^st opposite party and sum assured only Rs.1,00,000/- but not Rs.1,50,000/- as stated in complaint.  The 1^st opposite party also stated that there is no deficiency of service on the party of the 1^st opposite party, hence the claim against the 1^st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.    

15.     The 2^nd opposite party argued that the complainants not entitled any amount as stated in the complaint, the 2^nd opposite party argued that the complainants has not informed about the death of the policyholder immediately and there delay in intimating and the reasons are also not explained for delay intimation and the 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim under valid grounds and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.   We have already discussed about the opening of account with the 1^st opposite party and deduction of premium from the account of deceased life assured. So we are not reiterating the same facts are made in point number one.  The 2^nd opposite party filed a decision that for the delay in intimation the complainants are not entitled any claim as reported in I (2013) CPJ 60 (NC) between Suresh Kumar Versus National Insurance Company Limited in the above case the Hon’ble National Commission is dismissed the appeal on the ground that delay intimation to the Insurance Company with a gap of 10 days after incident and delay amounted to violation of condition 1 of Insurance Policy about the delay.  Neither the 1^st opposite party nor the 2^nd opposite party mentioned in their respective counters about the date of claim submitted by the complainants, the opposite parties 1 & 2 shifting their liability saying that they have not received claim intimation within a stipulated time.  The complainants stated that after the death of the policyholder immediately they have sent all the claims to 1^st opposite party, the                             1^st opposite party admitted in the counter that they forwarded the claims forms immediately to 2^nd opposite party. But all parties have failed to explain when the complainants made claim with the 1^st opposite party when the 1^st opposite party forwarded the claim forms to 2^nd opposite party is silent. Hence we take this latches in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties. We are of the view that the complainants made claim within stipulated time and there is no delay in intimation of death of the policyholder.  The argument of opposite parties 1 & 2 are not considered about the negligence on their part.  Because the opposite parties 1 & 2 are not acted deligently with the complainants when claim was made by the complainants and there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties 1 & 2.                                                                                

16.     In the result the complaint is allowed partly all the complainants are entitled equal share on the sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite parties 1 & 2  jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of death of  life assured i.e., 31.12.2012 to till retaliation within one month from the date of this order.  In the circumstances other claims is dismissed.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 18^th day of September, 2014.

                          Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

              LADY MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT (FAC)

 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                           DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

             ANANTAPUR                                                         ANANTAPUR  

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS:

NIL

ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS

Ex.A1 Original pass book issued by the 1^st opposite party in favour of the deceased

          V.Chenna Reddy  dt.29.10.1997.

Ex.A2 Attested copy of F.I.R. in crime No.115/2012 dt.31.12.2012 of Pamidi P.S.

Ex.A3 Attested copy of Inquest report dt.01.01.2013.

Ex.A4 Attested copy of Postmortem dt.01.01.2013 issued by the Government Hospital

          Padimi.       

Ex.A5 Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A6 Photo copy of repudiation letter dt.04.07.2012 issued by the 2^nd opposite party

          to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A7 Office copy of the legal notice dt.17.09.2013 got issued by the complainants to

          the opposite parties 1 & 2.

Ex.A8 Reply notice dt.03.10.2013 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the counsel for

          the complainants.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1Investigator report dt.20.05.2013 submit to 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B2True copy of policy bearing No.050400/42/12/03/00000700.

               Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

            LADY MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT (FAC)  

 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM                            DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

             ANANTAPUR                                                         ANANTAPUR