BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT. DCFR NO. 5/12 to 7/12. THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL 2012. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Anusuya W/o. Late. Yenkappa Age: 28, Occ: [In C.C NO. 5/12] Household, R/o. Mednapur village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. [In C.C NO.6/12] :- Smt. Neelamma W/o. Sharanappa Angadi,(Kurubar) Age: 52 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Medanapur village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. [In C.C NO.7/12] :- Sharanappa S/o. Yamunappa, Age: 56 years, Occ: Retired HGM, Company Employee, R/o. Medanapur village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// COMMON OPPOSITE:- 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch, Office, Sindhanoor, Sindhanoor Dist: Raichur. 2. General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. Date of institution. [In C.C NO. 5/12 to 7/12] :- 11-01-12. Notice served on . [In C.C.NO. 5/13 to 7/13] :- 27-01-12. Date of disposal :- 23-04-12 Complainant represented by Sri. Mallangouda, Advocate. Opposite No-1 represented by Sri. Ravindra Mujumdar Advocate. Opposite No. 2 represented by Sri. P. Basavaraj. Advocate. --- These cases coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- The complainant in C.C. No. 5/12 by name Anusuyya filed her complaint for to award Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 60,000/- towards two LIC Policy subscribed by her husband i.e, life time with compensation amount and cost. In C.C. No. 6/12 is the complaint filed by Smt. Neelamma against opposites for to opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 55,000/- towards Insurance Policy subscribed by her son Yenkappa i.e, life time along with cost and other reliefs. In C.C. No. 7/12 is filed by one Sharanappa for to direct opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards Insurance Policy subscribed his sown Yenkappa while he was alive with other benefits, cost etc., 3. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 5/12 are that, she being the wife of Yenkappa, who subscribed two Insurance Policies bearing No. 661562777 for Rs. 50,000/- and another policy bearing No. 661563896 for Rs. 60,000/- from opposite LIC. Opposite No-2 is an employer of Yenkappa. The said Yenkappa died on 16-04-2011 during his service, thereafter she being a nominee under the said two LIC policies, while claim petition before opposite No-2, but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shown their negligence in making payment of full amount under the policy as such, she filed this complaint for the reliefsas noted in it, among other grounds. 4. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 6/12 are that, she is the mother of deceased Yenkappa and also a nominee under the LIC Policy bearing No. 661562129 from opposite LIC. He was working under opposite No-2, but the said Yekappa died on 16-04-2011, she being a nominee under the said policy filed claim petition before opposite No-2, but opposite No-1 and opposite No-2 shown their negligence in settling her claim as such, she filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it, among other grounds. 5. The brief facts of the complainant case in C.C. No. 7/12 are that, he being a son of deceased Yenkappa and also a nominee holder under LIC Policy bearing No. 661685555 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by opposite No-1. His father Yenkappa died on 16-04-2011 while he was in service under opposite No-2. Thereafter he filed claim petition before opposite No-1 with necessary documents but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 shown their negligence in settling the claim, as such, he filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it, among other grounds. 6. In all the three cases opposite No-1 LIC of India took defence that, the policy subscribed by deceased Yenkappa are under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-2 employer of him. In all the cases premiums not paid policy issued became in lapsed condition. Yenkappa not acted as per his undertaking before it. Opposite No-2 employer not deducted the premiums of those policy, as such the complainant is not entitled for the amount as noted under respective policies, there was no deficiency in service on its part, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss all the three complaints among other grounds. 7. Opposite No-2 Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., who is an employer of deceased Yenkappa took similar defence in all the three cases by contending that there was no sufficient earning by its employer Yenkappa, as such it unable to deduct the premiums of those policies and thereby it not sent any amount to opposite No-1 LIC of India there was no lapsed in its duty, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaints as there was no deficiency in its service as alleged against it. 8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties, in both the cases, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: In C.C. No. 5/12:- 1. Whether the complainant-Anasuyya proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as alleged in her complaint. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. What order? In C.C. No. 6/12:- 1. Whether the complainant-Neelamma proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as alleged in her complaint. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 4. What order? In C.C. No. 7/12:- 1. Whether the complainant-Sharanappa proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as alleged in his complaint. ? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 5. What order? 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:- In C.C. No. 5/12 :- (1) In affirmative against opposite No-1 and in negative opposite No-2. (2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : In C.C. No. 6/12 :- (1) In affirmative against opposite No-1 and in negative opposite No-2. (2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : In C.C. No. 7/12 :- (1) In affirmative against opposite No-1 and in negative opposite No-2.. (2) As discussed in the body of the judgment and as noted in the final order (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 5/12. 10. To prove the facts involved in this point affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 Manager Legal of LIC was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked. Similarly affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked. POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 6/12. 11. To prove the facts involved in this point affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 Manager Legal of LIC was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked and affidavit-evidence of Executive Officer of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked. POINT NO.1 :- In C.C. No. 7/12. 12. To prove the facts involved in this point affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Manager Legal of LIC of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked and affidavit-evidence of Executive Officer of opposite No-2 was filed, who is noted as RW-2. No documents filed and marked. 13. In all the three cases there are similar allegations made against opposite No-1 and opposite No-1 took similar defence in all the cases. Similarly opposite No-2 also took similar contentions in all the cases, as such, all these cases are disposed off by this common judgment. 14. On perusal of the allegations made in all the three cases and evidence of opposite No-1 of LIC. It is very much clear that, Yenkappa policyholder was an employee under opposite No-2 at his service. He subscribed totally four LIC Policies of complainant amount. 15. It is a fact that, the said Yenkappa subscribed those policies under the salary deduction scheme by opposite No-2. It is also a fact that, Yenkappa died on 16-04-2011 while he was in service. 16. In view of certain undisputed facts and all the three cases, we have not referred the documents related to undisputed facts. 17. The main contention of opposite No-2 for non making the payment under those five policies is that, Yenkappa not paid premiums in respect of those policies and opposite No-2 also not sent five premiums of those policies, even though Yenkappa subscribed those policies under salary deduction scheme. Hence the claim of each complainant cannot be considered of those policies are lapsed policies. 18. Opposite No-2 stated in non making payment of premiums of those policies that, there was no monthly earning from Yenkappa till his death as such, it not able to sent any amount towards premiums of those policies. Hence it not liable for any claim of complainant. 19. Keeping in view of these facts, now let us examine the document Ex.R-2 which are filed by LIC of India. According to LIC of India the two policies as noted in CC.No. 5/12 are under lapsed condition. Yenkappa himself undertook to pay premiums of those policies regularly vide his undertaking letter Ex.R-2. In the similar way LIC of India relied on Ex.R-2 in CC. No. 6/12 & in CC No. 7/12 towards its defence. 20. In view of such contention it is necessary for us to see whether Insurance Company opposite No-1 in all the cases has got in justification in not settling the claim under five LIC policies issued by it. 21. We have carefully examined document Ex.R-2 which is a letter said to have given by Yenkappa i.e, life time. This letter is dt. 11-01-2010. According to this letter Yenkappa personally undertook to make regular premiums but not paid premiums he paid premiums towards first policy in C.C. No. 5/12 from 12/2009 to 08/2010 and in respect of second policy, he paid premiums from 03/2010 to 10/2010, thereafter he not paid any amount till his death. 22. This letter Ex.R-2 refers policy No. 661562777 of Rs. 50,000/- it not refers in respect of the second policy No. 661563896. 23. Hence Ex.R-2 is no way concerned to the second policy. Now we have to see as to whether this Ex.R-2 letter supports the case of LIC of India. We have gone through the pleadings of opposite No-1 wherein, it clearly admitted that, Yenkappa paid premiums in respect of policy No-1 in CC.No. 5/12 that from 12/2009 to 08/2010 if, clearly it was a case of opposite No-1, then what was necessary for opposite No-1 LIC of India to get a letter Ex.R-2 from deceased Yenkappa, When premiums were regularly paid in between 12/2009 to 08/2010. No explanation is out coming from the side of LIC of India for existence of Ex.R-2 when Yenkappa paid premiums in respect of the said policy. Ex.R-2 is in a printed form under the letter of head of opposite No-1 LIC of India, if really Yenkappa executed Ex.R-2 then, how he got a letter head of LIC for such condition explanation to this regard also not out coming either in the pleading or in the affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1. Hence, we are of the clear view that, Ex.R-2 is a concocted and created document after thought only to avoid the payment of full amount of the said two policies and thereafter its conditions that, the said two policies are in lapsed condition is amounting to deficiency in its service. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative against opposite No-1 and in negative opposite No-2. We have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-2, as such this complaint is dismissed against opposite No-2. POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 5/12. 24. As regards to the reliefs are concerned, the complainant is entitled to get full face value of Rs. 50,000/- with bonus towards policy bearing No. 661562777. Similarly she is also entitled full amount of Rs. 60,000/- with bonus towards second policy bearing No. 661563896. The complainant also entitled for amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service of opposite No-1 and she also entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. She also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the total amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- from opposite No-1 from the date of this order till realization of the full amount. This complaint is dismissed against opposite No-2, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No. 5/12. 25. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order. POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 6/12. 26. In this case also opposite LIC of India relied on Ex.R-2. This letter is similar to the letter already appreciated by us while dealing in CC.No.5/12. Hence there is no need for us to discuss in detail regarding this document and we are of the view that, Ex.R-2 concocted and created document only to avoid payment to the complainant the stands taken by opposite No-1 Insurance Company that, the policy became lapsed policy is itself sufficient that, it has committed deficiency in its service, accordingly we answered Point No-1, in affirmative against opposite No-1 in and we have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-2, accordingly we answered Point No-2. 27. The claim of the complainant under the policy bearing No. 661562129 is for Rs. 55,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled for to recover the amount of Rs. 55,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation and totally Rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization of the full amount from opposite No-1 only. This complaint is dismissed against opposite No-2, accordingly we answered Point No.2 POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No. 6/12. 28. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order. POINT NO.2 :- In C.C. No. 7/12. 29. In this case opposite No-1 fully relied on Ex.R-2 a letter said to have executed by deceased Yenkappa i.e, life time, we have appreciated this letter in detail while dealing a case in CC.No. 5/12 and we have not accepted it by holding that, this letter is concocted and created document to avoid the payment under the policy. Hence opposite No-1 has committed deficiency in its service there are no evidences regarding the payment of deficiency in service by opposite No-2. Hence this complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. As regards to the reliefs are concerned, the complainant is claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under the policy bearing No. 661685555 as such he is entitled for Rs. 50,000/- under the policy. He also entitled for Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation. Hence complainant in CC.No. 7/12 Sharanappa totally entitled for Rs. 55,000/- from opposite No-1 only. He also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 55,000/- from the date of this order till realization of the full amount. This complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed, accordingly we answered Point No-2. POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No. 7/12. 30. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order. POINT NO.3 :- In C.C. No.5/12 to 7/12. 31. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No.5/12 to 7/12, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDERIn C.C. No. 5/12. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 5/12 is partly allowed with cost against opposite No-1 only. The complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- with bonus and other benefits under two Insurance Policies. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total Rs. 1,15,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. This complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 6/12. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 6/12is partly allowed with cost against opposite No-1 only. The complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 60,000/- with bonus and other benefits as noted in the body of the judgment of this case. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total Rs. 60,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. This complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. In C.C. No. 7/12. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 7/12is partly allowed with cost against opposite No-1 only. The complainant is totally entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 55,000/- with bonus and other benefits as noted in the body of the judgment. The complainant is entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total Rs. 55,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. This complaint against opposite No-2 is dismissed. Opposite No-1 in all the cases is hereby granted one month time to make the payment from the date of this order. Intimate the parties accordingly. Keep the copy of judgment in C.C. No. 6/12 & in C.C.No.7/12. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 23-04-12) Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi, Member. Member. President, District Consumer Forum-Raichur. District Consumer Forum-Raichur. District Consumer Forum-Raichur. “R” | 
