BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 16th day of November, 2005
CC No. 137/2005
S.Safina Bee,
W/o. S. Noor Basha,
R/o. Machapuram (V),
Nandavaram (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Yemmiganur Branch,
Kurnool Dist.
2. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional Office,
College road, Cuddapah. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 14.11.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri C. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri G.MD. Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This CC of the complainant is filed under section 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay accidental benefit of Rs.30,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of death of deceased, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant’s husband Late S. Noor Basha insured his life with opposite parties for Rs. 30,000/- under New Janaraksha policy bearing No. 65317025 with accidental benefit and nominated the complainant as his nominee. As per the policy conditions if the insured died accidentally the opposite parties have to pay the assured amount with benefits and accidental benefit also. On 17.2.2005 the insured met with accident near Bychigeri Village Cross Road, while he was going on his scooter bearing No. ABSM 4403. One lorry bearing No. AP 21 V- 1462 driven at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed the complainant’s scooter, as a result the policy holder received injuries and died in Gosha Hospital, Adoni. On the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite parties settled for assured amount of Rs. 31,636/- and paid the same to the complainant stating that the claim for accidental benefit is under consideration. From the documents submitted by the complainant it is clear that death of the insured occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of lorry coming from opposite direction and the insured no way responsible for the said accident and the question of committing breach of law by him does not arise. Hence, there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties is not paying the accidental benefit to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents Viz (1) C.C of First Information Report (2) CC of Inquest Report and (3) CC of charge sheet in CC NO. 193/2005 on the file of J.M.F.C. Adoni, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to the opposite party No.2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.2 filed its written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties questions the maintainability of complainant’s case either in law or on facts. But admits the complainants husband taking a policy bearing No.653170257 for Rs.30,000/- with accident benefit. After the death of the policy holder on 17.2.2005 due to accident, the complainant submitted necessary requirements i.e claim form A, claim form C, death certificate, original bond, FIR, Police Inquest Report, P.M Report etc for consideration of basic amount and accidental benefit. The opposite parties settled the claim for basic amount with bonus for Rs. 31,636/- and paid to the complainant as full final settlement on 15.6.2005. As the complainant failed to produce driving licence and police final investigation report of the deceased for considering accidental claim, the opposite parties could not settle the accidental benefit. It further submits that the opposite parties requires information as to whether the deceased was having any valid driving licence at the time of accident and a copy of final investigation report to know whether there was any breach of law on the part of the deceased at the time of the accident. It lastly submits that there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties, as it settled the claim for basic assured amount and could not pay accidental benefit as the complainant failed to produce driving licence and police final investigation report, hence seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents Viz (1) policy bond bearing No. 653170297 of deceased (2) dis-charge voucher dt 15.6.2005 executed by the complainant and (3) T/C of letter addressed to the complainant by opposite party No.1 dt 15.6.2005, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
8. It is a simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties for not paying accidental benefit under the policy bearing No. 653170257 of her husband, S. Noor Basha who nominated her as nominee. She further alleges that the opposite parties paid basic amount with bonus to the tune of Rs. 31,636/- but did not settle the accidental benefit. As against to this the opposite parties in their written version averments alleges the that the complainant submitted required documents such as claim from A, claim form B, policy bond, police inquest report, death certificate, P.M. Report, but failed to produce driving licence and Final Investigation Report of police, which would clearly show the exact cause of death. But the complainant submits that inspite of her best efforts she could not produce the above required documents. The charge sheet in Ex A.3 and Inquest Report in Ex A.2 clearly shows the death of the insured was due to accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the opposite side lorry driver and not due to negligence of the insured. In these circumstances, there appears no necessity for the opposite parties to insist for the production of Final Investigation Report and driving licence of the deceased. The complainant’s side referred to the decision of our State Commission between New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Yadvalli Ganga Devi, reported in 2004 (2) CPR Pg 54, where in, it was held that, where the insured holding endowment policy died due to drowing in swimming pool and post mortem report and inquest papers showsd the cause of death, then repudiation of claim that final investigation report was not submitted was unjustified and deficiency in service. Hence following the afore mentioned decision the said contention of opposite parties for insisting for production of Final investigation report, in rejected.
9. It was urged by the learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant did not produce driving licence of the insured, which itself shows that the insured was not possessing valid driving licence, which is violation of policy conditions of said policy. The opposite parties will stand exonerated because at the relevant time of the accident the insured was not having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle. But on the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of Supreme Court between B.V Naga Raju Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, reported in, 1996 II CPJ pg 28, unless the insured was responsible for the accident and if the accident occurred as a result of collision, even though, for the relevant time the vehicle was being driven by a person who has no effective driving licence at that time, the exclusion clause will not apply. In the case in hand, it admitted fact that the police has registered a crime and after investigation the police has filed the charge sheet (Ex A.3) against the lorry driver which collided with the scooter of the insured. This material would indicate that the insured was not responsible for the occurrence of the accident nor in any way contributed to the accident, hence the opposite parties will not get exonerated. The complainant’s side also made reliance on the decision of Kerala State Commission between. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs V.M. Joseph reported in 1999 (1) CPR pg 449, where in it was held that the crucial point would be whether non-possession of effective licence had contributed to occurrence of accident, the police after investigation had challaned the vehicle which had collided with the car of the complainant, therefore the claim cannot be repudiated on the ground the complainant is not possessing effective driving licence.
10 To sum up following the principles laid down by Supreme Court in Naga Raju case’s and State Commission in Ganga Devi’s case and V.M. Joscphis case, it is not open to the opposite parties to insist for Final Investigation report and driving licence of the insured, when it clear that death of the insured occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite side lorry as per charge sheet and inquest report. Hence, there appears every justification in the claim made by the complainant. As the opposite parties by their deficient conduct driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal the complaint is entitled to costs of the case.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant the accidental benefit of Rs.30,000/- with bonus as per the policy of the deceased S. Noor Bash bearing No. 653170257 with 12% interest per annum from the date of death of deceased till realization along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Court this the 16th day of November, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 C.C of First Information Report dated 15.10.2005.
Ex A.2 CC of Inquest Report dated 15.10.2005.
Ex A.3 CC of Charge sheet in CC No. 193/2005 on the file of J.M.F.C, Adoni.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties :-
Ex B.1 Original policy bond bearing No. 653170297 of deceased.
Ex B.2 Discharge voucher dt 15.6.2005 executed by the complainant.
Ex B.3 True copy of letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party
No.1 dt 15.6.2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri C. Ramana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
- Sri G.MD. Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
