The Branch Manager LIC V/S Siddamma @Parvathenna W/o Late,Devappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/1

Siddamma @Parvathenna W/o Late,Devappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Siddalingappa

24 Jul 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/1

Siddamma @Parvathenna W/o Late,Devappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager LIC Gangamma W/o Late.Kakesab Karigodi						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Siddamma @ Parvatamma W/o. Late Devappa against the two Respondents (1) Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Manvi., (2) Gangamma W/o. Late Lalesab Karigodi. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the legally wedded of late Devappa. During the life time of late Devappa he had insured his life with Respondent No-1 in policy No. 663228372 dt. 26-12-03 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The said Devappa has nominated his mother Gangamma i.e, Respondent No-2 as nominee to the above said policy. The said Devappa husband of the complainant died in accident during the subsistence of policy. In this regard the UDR case has been registered before the Kowtal Police Station under UDR NO. 21/08 on 18-09-08. On the strength of the Respondent No-2 intimated about the accident and death of Devappa & claimed death claims and benefits beyond the back without intimating the complainant who is the legally wedded wife of assured late Devappa. Further it is the case of the complainant that the Respondent No-1 has already paid the death claims to the Respondent No-2 an amount of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque bearing No. 0415229 dt. 24-11-08. The same was came to the knowledge of the complainant much later and when the complainant claimed her right to share in the said amount. The Respondent No-2 has refused and denied for any share in the said death claim and benefits. The complainant made representation to the Respondent No-1 on 10-12-08 for payment of remaining death benefits of her husband as she has got equal right to share the amounts out of the above said policy. Further contended that there are no issues to the complainant out of the wedlock with her husband late Devappa and there are no other legal heirs to said deceased husband Devappa, except the Respondent No-2 and the claimant therefore she is entitled for 50% of the amounts payable out of the above said policy amount. Further it is the case of the complainant that the Respondent No-1 in response to the representation made by the complainant replied through letter dt. 12-12-08 stating that as per valid nominee and in-view of policy condition and Insurance Act would not pay benefits to the complainant and will pay benefits to the Respondent NO-2 the nominee of late Devappa. The complainant being the legally wedded wife and heir of assured late Devappa is entitled for 50% of the amount payable out of said policy and denial of the same by the Respondent No-1 is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. Hence sought the direction against Respondent No-1 for payment of all remaining death benefits payable out of policy No. 66328372 dt. 26-12-03 along with 18% interest p.a. from 10-12-08 and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 2 have appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-1 has filed written version contending that the complainant is not the nominee therefore she has got no rights to claim in-respect of the policy benefits of late Devappa. Hence there is no binding and liability on the part of Respondent No-1 to pay any amount to the complainant. The Respondent No-2 is the mother of the policyholder and she has been named as nominee in the policy by late Devappa and she is the Class-I heir as such the dispute is to be decided by the Civil Court by filing a civil suit in between complainant and Respondent No-2 as such the question of payment of remaining benefit amount to the complainant does not arise and more ever this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the matter is in civil nature. Further it is contended that on the death of the policy holder Respondent No-2 has moved an application for payments for benefits on the policy as a nominee, accordingly the Respondent No-1 as per the terms of the policy and as per section 39 of Insurance Act has made payment of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque dt. 08-12-08 to the nominee i.e, Respondent No-2. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent NO-1. It is further contended that the claim of the complainant in-respect of the policy to the extent of 50% share is to be decided only by the civil court in between complainant and Respondent No-2. Unless otherwise she get decided her rights from the civil court she cannot claim her rights before this Forum and the Respondent No-1 has no liability to response to the claim of the complainant and before filing of this complaint the Respondent NO-1 has made the payment of the policy to the nominee i.e, Respondent NO-2. Therefore the Respondent No-1 has prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with exemplary cost against Respondent No-1 3. The Respondent No-2 has filed her written version in it she has contended that since complainant is not nominee to the policy and there is no mention in the policy in this regard therefore she has no rights in the policy amount. Further she has contended that before his marriage late Devappa has obtained the policy and he has made the Respondent No-2 as the nominee in the said policy. On the strength of nominee she has got every rights to claim the policy benefits accordingly the Respondent No-1 has paid the policy amount. The Respondent No-2 further contended that there is no relationship between complainant and Respondent No-1 and in between complainant and Respondent No-2. Therefore the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable hence deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1 does not arise. If at all the complainant wants to claim her share in-respect of the policy better she has to approach civil court, but not before the Forum. So on the basis of the reasons mentioned above the Respondent No-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost of the proceedings. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and she has got marked (4) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. In rebuttal the Respondent No-1 has filed sworn affidavit of N.H. Gurikar, Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Raichur. Similarly the Respondent No-2 has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chef. The Respondents have not produced any documents hence no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points are arises for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant prove deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that the late Devappa had life assured policy No. 663228372 dt. 2-12-03 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Respondent No-1, the Respondent No-2 is the nominee to the said policy and not in dispute that the complainant-Siddamma is the legally wedded wife of late Devappa. It is also not in dispute that the late Devappa was died in accident and UDR case has been registered before the Kowtal Police Station under UDR NO. 21/08 on 18-09-08. Further it is also not in dispute that the Respondent No-1 has paid death claim amount of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque bearing No. 0415229 dt. 24-11-08 to the Respondent No-2. 8. It is the case of the complainant that since she is the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the late Devappa she is entitled for 50% of the amounts payable out of the policy death benefits but behind her back the Respondent No-1 has paid the death benefits to the Respondent No-2 and refused to pay 50% of the death claim amount is nothing but a deficiency on the part of the Respondent No-1. 9. Further it is the case of the Respondent No-1 that the Respondent No-2 is the nominee of the policy of late Devappa hence they have paid the death claim benefit amount to the Respondent No-2. 10. The complainant has filed during the course of enquiry in all four documents namely: (1) Xerox copy of policy status report in policy No. 663228372 is marked at Ex.P-1 (2) True copy of complaint objection letter issued to Respondent No-1 by the complainant is marked at Ex.P-2 (3) Xerox copy of reply letter issued by respondent No.1 to the complainant is marked at Ex.P-3. (4) Residential certificate issued by President Gram Panchayat Kowtal is marked at Ex.P-4. Apart from this (7) more documents are filed they are charge sheet statement of Seetamma i.e, Respondent No-2, FIR etc., 11. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents filed by the complainant. Particularly from the close perusal of the Ex.P-1 i.e, status report of policy No. 663228372 it appears that Smt. Gangamma W/o. Lalesab Karigodi i.e, Respondent No-2 is the nominee of the above said policy. As contended by the Respondent No-1 and as per the section 39 of Insurance Act the nominee is entitled to receive the proceeds of the policy in case of death of the policyholder before the maturity of the policy. In case the insured is alive on the maturity of the policy the nominee has no right to receive the money. Further it is very clear that in case the nominee and policy holder dies before the maturity of the policy the legal heirs of the nominee will be entitled to receive the policy amount but not by the heirs of the policyholder. Further the act specifies that if at all the heirs of the policy holder wants to claim their rights over the policy amount they are supports to appear before the civil court which has got ample power to pass appropriate order in respect of the rights over the policy money is concerned. Here it is not the case of the complainant that she has approached the civil court and got the order in this regard and even inspite of that the Respondent No-1 has not paid an amount as she claimed herein. Under these circumstances the Respondent NO-1 has rightly issued the amount to the nominee and rightly refused the claim of the complainant, hence we do not find any reasons to believe that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. 12. Further, no doubt the complainant is the legally wedded wife and legal heir to the life assured Late Devappa but she cannot be accepted by the Respondent No-1 as a share holder to the claim amount in the absence of her name in the policy as a nominee and any order of the court as discussed supra. If at all the complainant wants to claim any share in the death benefits comes under the policy as a legal heir, she has to approach to the civil court wherein the claim of the complaint can be considered and determined after full pledged trial on this material aspect and thereby her right against the Respondent No-2 can be decided, then only the Respondent NO-1 is bound to consider the claim of the complainant but not under the facts and circumstances as explained in the complaint by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency we find on the part of the Respondent NO-1. 13. Further on going through the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by the complainant absolutely there is no case against the Respondent No-2 accept the IA filed in the complaint in order to seeking the interium relief against the Respondent NO-1 for not to release the death claim benefits pertaining to the policy in-question to the Respondent No-2. Hence we hold that there is no claim against the Respondent No-2 therefore the complaint against the Respondent No-2 is dismissed as no claim. In the above circumstances the complainant is totally failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Respondent NO-1. Hence the Point No-1 is answered in the Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-07-09.) Sd/- Sri.Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Siddamma @ Parvatamma W/o. Late Devappa against the two Respondents (1) Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Manvi., (2) Gangamma W/o. Late Lalesab Karigodi. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the legally wedded of late Devappa. During the life time of late Devappa he had insured his life with Respondent No-1 in policy No. 663228372 dt. 26-12-03 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The said Devappa has nominated his mother Gangamma i.e, Respondent No-2 as nominee to the above said policy. The said Devappa husband of the complainant died in accident during the subsistence of policy. In this regard the UDR case has been registered before the Kowtal Police Station under UDR NO. 21/08 on 18-09-08. On the strength of the Respondent No-2 intimated about the accident and death of Devappa & claimed death claims and benefits beyond the back without intimating the complainant who is the legally wedded wife of assured late Devappa. Further it is the case of the complainant that the Respondent No-1 has already paid the death claims to the Respondent No-2 an amount of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque bearing No. 0415229 dt. 24-11-08. The same was came to the knowledge of the complainant much later and when the complainant claimed her right to share in the said amount. The Respondent No-2 has refused and denied for any share in the said death claim and benefits. The complainant made representation to the Respondent No-1 on 10-12-08 for payment of remaining death benefits of her husband as she has got equal right to share the amounts out of the above said policy. Further contended that there are no issues to the complainant out of the wedlock with her husband late Devappa and there are no other legal heirs to said deceased husband Devappa, except the Respondent No-2 and the claimant therefore she is entitled for 50% of the amounts payable out of the above said policy amount. Further it is the case of the complainant that the Respondent No-1 in response to the representation made by the complainant replied through letter dt. 12-12-08 stating that as per valid nominee and in-view of policy condition and Insurance Act would not pay benefits to the complainant and will pay benefits to the Respondent NO-2 the nominee of late Devappa. The complainant being the legally wedded wife and heir of assured late Devappa is entitled for 50% of the amount payable out of said policy and denial of the same by the Respondent No-1 is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. Hence sought the direction against Respondent No-1 for payment of all remaining death benefits payable out of policy No. 66328372 dt. 26-12-03 along with 18% interest p.a. from 10-12-08 and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 & 2 have appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-1 has filed written version contending that the complainant is not the nominee therefore she has got no rights to claim in-respect of the policy benefits of late Devappa. Hence there is no binding and liability on the part of Respondent No-1 to pay any amount to the complainant. The Respondent No-2 is the mother of the policyholder and she has been named as nominee in the policy by late Devappa and she is the Class-I heir as such the dispute is to be decided by the Civil Court by filing a civil suit in between complainant and Respondent No-2 as such the question of payment of remaining benefit amount to the complainant does not arise and more ever this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the matter is in civil nature. Further it is contended that on the death of the policy holder Respondent No-2 has moved an application for payments for benefits on the policy as a nominee, accordingly the Respondent No-1 as per the terms of the policy and as per section 39 of Insurance Act has made payment of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque dt. 08-12-08 to the nominee i.e, Respondent No-2. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent NO-1. It is further contended that the claim of the complainant in-respect of the policy to the extent of 50% share is to be decided only by the civil court in between complainant and Respondent No-2. Unless otherwise she get decided her rights from the civil court she cannot claim her rights before this Forum and the Respondent No-1 has no liability to response to the claim of the complainant and before filing of this complaint the Respondent NO-1 has made the payment of the policy to the nominee i.e, Respondent NO-2. Therefore the Respondent No-1 has prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with exemplary cost against Respondent No-1 3. The Respondent No-2 has filed her written version in it she has contended that since complainant is not nominee to the policy and there is no mention in the policy in this regard therefore she has no rights in the policy amount. Further she has contended that before his marriage late Devappa has obtained the policy and he has made the Respondent No-2 as the nominee in the said policy. On the strength of nominee she has got every rights to claim the policy benefits accordingly the Respondent No-1 has paid the policy amount. The Respondent No-2 further contended that there is no relationship between complainant and Respondent No-1 and in between complainant and Respondent No-2. Therefore the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable hence deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1 does not arise. If at all the complainant wants to claim her share in-respect of the policy better she has to approach civil court, but not before the Forum. So on the basis of the reasons mentioned above the Respondent No-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost of the proceedings. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and she has got marked (4) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. In rebuttal the Respondent No-1 has filed sworn affidavit of N.H. Gurikar, Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Raichur. Similarly the Respondent No-2 has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chef. The Respondents have not produced any documents hence no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points are arises for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant prove deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that the late Devappa had life assured policy No. 663228372 dt. 2-12-03 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Respondent No-1, the Respondent No-2 is the nominee to the said policy and not in dispute that the complainant-Siddamma is the legally wedded wife of late Devappa. It is also not in dispute that the late Devappa was died in accident and UDR case has been registered before the Kowtal Police Station under UDR NO. 21/08 on 18-09-08. Further it is also not in dispute that the Respondent No-1 has paid death claim amount of Rs. 53,654/- through cheque bearing No. 0415229 dt. 24-11-08 to the Respondent No-2. 8. It is the case of the complainant that since she is the legally wedded wife and legal heir of the late Devappa she is entitled for 50% of the amounts payable out of the policy death benefits but behind her back the Respondent No-1 has paid the death benefits to the Respondent No-2 and refused to pay 50% of the death claim amount is nothing but a deficiency on the part of the Respondent No-1. 9. Further it is the case of the Respondent No-1 that the Respondent No-2 is the nominee of the policy of late Devappa hence they have paid the death claim benefit amount to the Respondent No-2. 10. The complainant has filed during the course of enquiry in all four documents namely: (1) Xerox copy of policy status report in policy No. 663228372 is marked at Ex.P-1 (2) True copy of complaint objection letter issued to Respondent No-1 by the complainant is marked at Ex.P-2 (3) Xerox copy of reply letter issued by respondent No.1 to the complainant is marked at Ex.P-3. (4) Residential certificate issued by President Gram Panchayat Kowtal is marked at Ex.P-4. Apart from this (7) more documents are filed they are charge sheet statement of Seetamma i.e, Respondent No-2, FIR etc., 11. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents filed by the complainant. Particularly from the close perusal of the Ex.P-1 i.e, status report of policy No. 663228372 it appears that Smt. Gangamma W/o. Lalesab Karigodi i.e, Respondent No-2 is the nominee of the above said policy. As contended by the Respondent No-1 and as per the section 39 of Insurance Act the nominee is entitled to receive the proceeds of the policy in case of death of the policyholder before the maturity of the policy. In case the insured is alive on the maturity of the policy the nominee has no right to receive the money. Further it is very clear that in case the nominee and policy holder dies before the maturity of the policy the legal heirs of the nominee will be entitled to receive the policy amount but not by the heirs of the policyholder. Further the act specifies that if at all the heirs of the policy holder wants to claim their rights over the policy amount they are supports to appear before the civil court which has got ample power to pass appropriate order in respect of the rights over the policy money is concerned. Here it is not the case of the complainant that she has approached the civil court and got the order in this regard and even inspite of that the Respondent No-1 has not paid an amount as she claimed herein. Under these circumstances the Respondent NO-1 has rightly issued the amount to the nominee and rightly refused the claim of the complainant, hence we do not find any reasons to believe that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. 12. Further, no doubt the complainant is the legally wedded wife and legal heir to the life assured Late Devappa but she cannot be accepted by the Respondent No-1 as a share holder to the claim amount in the absence of her name in the policy as a nominee and any order of the court as discussed supra. If at all the complainant wants to claim any share in the death benefits comes under the policy as a legal heir, she has to approach to the civil court wherein the claim of the complaint can be considered and determined after full pledged trial on this material aspect and thereby her right against the Respondent No-2 can be decided, then only the Respondent NO-1 is bound to consider the claim of the complainant but not under the facts and circumstances as explained in the complaint by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency we find on the part of the Respondent NO-1. 13. Further on going through the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by the complainant absolutely there is no case against the Respondent No-2 accept the IA filed in the complaint in order to seeking the interium relief against the Respondent NO-1 for not to release the death claim benefits pertaining to the policy in-question to the Respondent No-2. Hence we hold that there is no claim against the Respondent No-2 therefore the complaint against the Respondent No-2 is dismissed as no claim. In the above circumstances the complainant is totally failed to prove the deficiency on the part of the Respondent NO-1. Hence the Point No-1 is answered in the Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 24-07-09.) Sd/- Sri.Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.