BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 27 OF 2016
Between:
1) Bareddy Dhanamma W/o Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 43 years,
Occ: Household,
2) Bareddy Rama Krishna Reddy S/o Late Venkat Reddy,
Aged: 23 years, Occ: Student,
Both are R/o Thimmareddygudem Village and Post,
Kokkireni Village of Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…COMPLAINANTS.
AND
1) The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Branch, M.B.R.Complex,
Huzurnagar Road, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2) The Manager (claims), L.I.C. of India, Senior Divisional Office,
Jeevan Sagar, Behind: NTR Stadium, Near: Indira Park,
Hyderabad-80.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20/10/2017, in the presence of Sri A.Vasantha Rao, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri K.Anantha Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI K.VINODH REDDY, MEMBER
1. This complaint is filed by Bareddy Dhanamma and Bareddy Ramakrishna Reddy under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two lakhs only ) towards accidental death benefits along with bonus and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of
Contd…2
-2-
death, Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards compensation, Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) towards mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
It is the say of the Complainants Smt.Bareddy Dhanamma W/o Late Venkat Reddy and Bareddy Ramakrishna Reddy S/o Late Venkat Reddy, that, the deceased Venkat Reddy had insured his life with the Opposite Party No.1 under the scheme of Jeevan Anand, vide Policy No.604658902 by paying a sum of Rs.16,089/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand and eighty nine only), the mode of payment was yearly, the said policy was in force from 09/12/2012, assured sum was for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with accidental double benefit which carries bonus @ 48% over the life assured sum. The deceased was regularly paying yearly premiums.
3. Complainants further says that, the deceased Venkat Reddy while attending his agriculture fields on 06/10/2015 at about 1415 hours, he noticed that there was disturbance in power supply to the agricultural motor. The deceased Venkat Reddy along with some of the villagers namely; Thimmareddy Shambi Reddy, Busipally Ramaji Reddy and Regatte Srinu, who are residents of Velidanda Village while checking the power lines noticed that, the fuse wire of electrical transformer has been burnt out. On noticing that the deceased Venkat Reddy tried to replace, with new fuse wire on the transformer, while doing so he received electric shock from the transformer and died on the spot. The same was informed to the Complainants by the fellow villagers, on hearing the occurrence of accident, Complainants rushed to the spot and found that the insured was already died on the spot.
Contd…3
-3-
4. The said matter was reported to the Police, Munagala, who registered a case in Cr.No.235/2015 under section 174 of Cr.P.C., dead body was sent to Area Hospital, Kodad for post mortem.
5. After performing the religious formalities and funerals, the death of the deceased was informed to the Opposite Parties claiming sum assured along with accidental benefit and bonus at the rate of 48% over the assured sum. For that, the Opposite Party No.1 had paid only the assured sum, i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only), but they did not pay the accidental benefit and the bonus. For that, the Complainants had approached the Opposite Parties for several times, as there was no response they had issued a legal notice on 11/08/2016 which was served on the Opposite Party No.1 and got reply on 16/08/2016, stating that the matter was referred to the higher officials who will decide the matter.
6. Later, the Opposite Party No.2 addressed a letter on dated 27/08/2016 to the Complainants, repudiating the claim for the reason that the deceased had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. The Police, Munagala filed chargesheet after detailed enquiry, stating that the deceased Venkat Reddy had died accidentally due to the electric shock.
8. Even after so many requests to the Opposite Parties, where they did not settle the accidental claim and bonus, the Complainants preferred this complaint.
9. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written version admits that, the deceased Bareddy Venkat Reddy had insured his life during
Contd…4
-4-
his life time, vide Policy No.604658902, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with double accidental death benefit, commencing from 09/12/2010 from the Opposite Party No.1.
10. At the time of submitting the claim forms only the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 came to know that, the deceased had died due to electric shock. Further they came to know that, the deceased had operated the live electrical line on the AB-switch control of 11-KV at Kokkireni-II Feeder unauthorizedly.
11. On receiving the death intimation from the Complainant No.1, the Opposite Parties had issued claim forms, to the Complainant No.1 and thereafter, on submission of the claim forms with necessary documents, the Opposite Parties have settle the claim for basic sum assured, i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only), Rs.34,800/- (Rupees Thirty four thousand and eight hundred only) towards vested bonus and Rs.8,800/- (Rupees Eight thousand and eight hundred only) towards interim bonus, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, totaling a sum of Rs.2,43,600/- (Rupees Two lakh forty three thousand and six hundred only) on 18/03/2016 and declined to pay the accidental benefit.
12. The reason for declining the accidental benefit is, that, the deceased had violated the policy conditions under Clause-10 (b) (4), in which it is stated that if the life assured committed any breach of law, accidental death benefit will not be extended. In this case, the deceased had committed breach of law by operating live electrical wire AB-Switch control of 11 KV against the Rules of T.S.S.P.D.C.L., on the result of that, he got electric shock and died, as such it cannot be termed as accidental death, as per the policy terms and conditions.
Contd…5
-5-
13. On the said incident, the T.S.S.P.D.C.L., authorities had conducted an enquiry, for that A.E. of T.S.S.P.D.C.L., Munagala, visited the scene of offence and submitted his report on dated 06/01/2016. In that report under para-6, he mentioned that the deceased Bareddy Venkat Reddy R/o Thimmareddygudem, himself attended electrical work at SS-006, 100 KV transformer without informing the concerned departmental lineman. The deceased Venkat Reddy had opened AB switch of 11 KV line while III-phase current was passing on the line, due to which he received electric shock and died. After receiving the preliminary report from the T.S.S.P.D.C.L., the Opposite Parties have informed the Complainant No.1, vide letter dated 18/07/2016 that the accidental death benefit is not admissible as per policy conditions. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit along with documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12. The Opposite Parties did not file any affidavit, but filed Exs.B-1 to B-5 on record.
15. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties or not?
2) Whether the Complainants are entitled for the claims they
made in their complaint?
3) If so, to what extent?
16. PONT No.1:
It is not in dispute that the deceased Bareddy Venkat Reddy obtained a Jeevan Anand Policy Ex.B-1 from the Opposite Parties, after paying a sum of Rs.16,089/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand and eighty nine only) towards yearly premium, the said policy came into force
Contd…6
-6-
from 09/12/2012. The sum assured is for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) along with bonus, and the policy also carries accidental death benefit equal to the sum assured, in the event of accidental death of the life assured. The deceased was paying regular yearly installments towards the premium of the policy which is established by Ex.A-1.
17. It is not in dispute that the deceased had expired on 06/10/2015 accidentally, while he was trying to replace the fuse wire on transformer which is nearby to the agricultural land of the deceased. The said incident was informed to P.S.Munagala by the wife of the deceased vide Ex.A-7, P.S.Munagala has registered a case in Cr.No.235/2015 U/S 174 of Cr.P.C. Further, the P.S.Munagala conducted inquest panchanama Ex.A-9, in which it had stated that the deceased died due to electric shock, while he was replacing the fuse wire of the transformer. After conducting required formalities, the Police hand handover the body of the deceased to the Community Health Centre, Kodad for post mortem. After conducting the post mortem, the Civil Assistant Surgeon at C.H.C., Kodad, had issued a Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.A-8, in which it is stated that the “life assured had died with cardio respiratory arrest, due to electric shock”. Further depending on the post mortem report, the P.S.Munagala had filed a Final Report Ex.A-10 before the Executive Magistrate and Tahasildar, Munagala, stating that the death was due to electric shock only while replacing the fuse wire on the transformer and there is no foul play or suspicion on anybody.
Contd…7
-7-
18. The Complainants made a claim with the Opposite Parties after acquiring all the required documents. The Opposite Parties settled the claim towards death benefit along with bonus, i.e. sum assured amount Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) along with vested bonus of Rs.34,800/- (Rupees Thirty four thousand and eight hundred only) and Rs.8,800/- (Rupees Eight thousand and eight hundred only) towards interim bonus, which comes to a total sum of Rs.2,43,600/- (Rupees Two lakh forty three thousand and six hundred only), as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim on the accidental death benefit was repudiated, vide Ex.A-2 letter dated 18/07/2016, basing on Ex.B-2 Letter No.ADE/OP/MNGL/F.No./D.No.673/2015, dated 20/10/2015, issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/TGSPDCL/Munagala.
19. After receiving the repudiation letter from the Opposite Parties, the Complainants have issued a legal notice Ex.A-3, dated 11/08/2016 to the Opposite Parties. For that, the Opposite Party No.1 replied that the Head Office is lookingafter the said matter vide Ex.A-5. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 vide Ex.A-6 replied that the accidental benefit was not payable to the Complainants as per the terms and conditions of the policy in Sl.No.10(b)(IV), resulting which the assured had committed breach of law, i.e. arranging fuse wire to electrical transformer unauthorizedly at agricultural land and operating AB-Switch is gross violation of TGSPDCL Rules.
20. As it is seen from the exhibits marked by the Opposite Parties, that, they had repudiated the accidental death benefit claim only basing on Ex.B-2 which was issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operations/TSSPDCL/
Contd..8
-8-
Munagala, wherein it was stated in the 14th column that the Department had mad tumtum, that ‘all the farmers or consumers are not to operate AB Switches unauthorizedly, if there is any problem in power supply, the Departmental staff should be informed’. But, the Assistant Divisional Engineer did not mention in that where the tumtum was given and whether all the farmers were present there at the time of tumtum, in that he did not mention a single word about the precautions taken at transformers so that no other person except the departmental staff could operate the AB Switches and further he did not mention that any sign board was installed at the transformer giving all particulars about contact phone numbers of helper, Lineman or A.E., or the address, where the complaint shall be made in person as per the Electricity Act. The Opposite Parties did not file any affidavit of the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operations/TSSPDCL/ Munagala, nor he was examined.
21. In this country, farmer is the only one who is mostly neglected by all the employees in rendering their services. No farmer shall attempt to repair a live transformer if he knows that he is going to die. If the crop is not protected by watering in time, the crop may dry out and die which may lead to starvation of the farmer and his family by not getting any returns from the crop. A farmer has to protect his crop from day one, i.e. sowing of the seeds till the end, i.e. harvesting of crop like his own child, otherwise he shall loose the investment made on it and also his livelihood by way of returns. As we know that a farmer is only one who is feeding all, who are sitting in their homes and enjoying the fruits of employment while they are working only for eight hours in the offices and also getting number of holidays by way
Contd..9
-9-
of Sundays, festivals, CLs etc., who could enjoy with their families in their homes, even then they will get the salaries for the holidays they had enjoyed. Only the farmer in our nation cannot take a leave even on the medical grounds also, because if he did not attend the field for a single day, the crop may be damaged by way of many reasons. Therefore, we feel that the deceased Venkat Reddy did not violate the law wontedly as stated by the Opposite Parties, but only tried to protect his crop which is equallant to his family members. Hence, we feel that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not paying the accidental benefits to the Complainant.
22. PONT Nos.2 & 3:
In the light of the above findings and observations, the Complainants are entitled for the accidental death benefits, vide Policy No.604658902 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18/03/2016, i.e. when the sum assured along with bonus was settled by the Opposite Parties.
In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed to deposit jointly and severally in this Forum, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards accidental death benefit along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 18/03/2016 till realization and costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). Time for compliance, one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 22nd day of November, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Contd..10
-10-
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. None.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.26/12/2014 Original Renewal Premium Receipt,
for Rs.16,089/-.
Ex.A-2 Dt.18/07/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.1
to the Complainant No.1.
Ex.A-3 Dt.11/08/2016 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel for
the Complainants to the Opposite Parties.
Ex.A-4 Dt.11/08/2016 Postal Receipts (2).
Ex.A-5 Dt.16/08/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.1
to the counsel for the Complainants.
Ex.A-6 Dt.27/08/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.2
to the counsel for the Complainants.
Ex.A-7 Dt.06/10/2015 Attested copy of F.I.R. along with complaint.
Ex.A-8 Dt.07/10/2015 Attested copy of Post Mortem Report.
Ex.A-9 Dt.06/10/2015 Attested copy of Inquest Report.
Ex.A-10 Dt.06/02/2016 Attested copy of Final Report.
Ex.A-11 Dt. Copy of terms and conditions of the Policy.
Ex.A-12 Dt. Pamphlet of New Jeeven Anand Policy.
For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B-1 Dt.05/01/2011 Attested copy of Policy.
Ex.B-2 Dt.20/10/2015 Original Preliminary Report of Electrical
Accident.
Ex.B-3 Dt.18/07/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.1
to the Complainant No.1.
Contd…11
-11-
Ex.B-4 Dt.27/08/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.2
to the counsel for the Complainants.
Ex.B-5 Dt.14/07/2016 Letter addressed by Opposite Party No.2
to the Opposite Party No.2.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri A.Vasantha Rao,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri K.Anantha Reddy,
Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
