BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY,
MEMBER.
. . .
MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 2019
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 37 OF 2015
Between:
1) Yanala Bharathamma W/o Late Narsimha Reddy, Age: 45 years,
Occ: Household,
2) Yanala Suresh Reddy S/o Late Narsimha Reddy, Age: 28 years,
Occ: Private Employee,
Both are R/o Nakrekal Village and Mandal of Nalgonda District.
…COMPLAINANTS.
AND
1) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch-I,
Nalgonda, Behind: CPI (M) Office, Near: District Court,
Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District, Pin: 508 001.
2) The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Jeevan Sagar, Behind: NTR Stadium, Near: Indira Park, Hyderabad-
500 080.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19/03/2019, in the presence of Sri G.Amarendar Reddy, Advocate for the Complainants, and Sri K.Anantha Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and 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 the Complainants No.1 and 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards accidental death benefit along with bonus payable under the Policy bearing No.603061967 with interest @ 12% p.a., Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and costs.
Contd…2
-2-
2. The facts leading to file this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant No.1 is the wife and the Complainant No.2 is the son of the deceased Yanala Narsimha Reddy. The deceased Yanala Narsimha Reddy obtained a Jeevan Anand Policy bearing No.603061967 from the Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with accidental death benefit. On 04/12/2011 the deceased Yanala Narsimha Reddy died in a road accident caused by the Lorry bearing No.AP-29TA-9936 which was negligently driven by its driver, for that the Police Nakrekal registered a case in Cr.No.200/2011, U/S 304-A of IPC against the driver of the above said Lorry.
3. After the death of the life assured Yanala Narsimha Reddy, the Complainants submitted the claim form along with all the required documents to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, for the settlement of the claim. The Opposite Party No.1 settled basic sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with vested bonus of Rs.17,000/-, in total Rs.1,17,000/- only. As the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not settle the accidental death benefit, the Complainants issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party No.1, in reply the Opposite Party No.1 addressed a letter stating that ‘to settle the accidental death benefit, the driving licence of the deceased is a mandatory’. The driving licence of the deceased was not traced as it was lost in the above said accident place and the same was informed to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. As the claim was not settled by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the Complainants preferred this complaint.
4. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written version stated that,they had settled the basic sum along with bonus,i.e.Rs.1,17,000/-
Contd…3
-3-
to the Complainants on account of death of the insured Yanala Narsimha Reddy, vide Policy 603061967 under Plan and Term 149-10. As the Complainants failed to produce the driving licence of the deceased insured, they did not settle the accidental death benefit as per Policy condition No.10(b)(iv), where the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay the accidental death benefit “ if the insured committing any breach of law, i.e. the deceased was driving the vehicle without valid driving licence at the time of the accident’. Therefore, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Complainant No.1 filed her proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. Sri V.Vijaya Sarathi, Manager, LIC of India, Secunderabad Divisional Office filed his affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties No.1 and 2?
2) Whether the Complainants are entitled for the
Accidental death benefit of the deceased insured?
3) If so, to what extent?
7. POINT No.1:
It is not in dispute that the deceased Yanala Narsimha Reddy had obtained a Jeevan Anand Policy under Plan and Term 149-10, vide Policy No.603061967 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with additional sum of accidental death benefit on 28/02/2007 from the Opposite Party No.1.
Contd…4
-4-
8. It is also not in dispute that on 04/12/2011 while the deceased Yanala Narsimha Reddy was returning from his work place to his home, a Lorry bearing No.AP-29TA-9936 came in a rash and negligent manner causing accident, where the deceased died on the spot. A case was registered by the Police Nakrekal in Cr.No.200/2011, U/S 304-A of IPC against the driver of the above said Lorry.
9. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had settled basic death benefit along with accrued bonus, totaling a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- to the Complainants. As the Complainants did not produce the driving licence of the deceased insured, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay the accidental death benefits to the Complainants.
10. As per Policy condition No.10(b)(iv), vide Ex.B-3, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are not liable to pay the accidental death benefit in the case where life assured committed any “breach of law”. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 relied on a citation where the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in a Revision Petition No.1406/2012 squashed and set aside the order of the Consumer Forum, Rajkot District. While allowing the appeal wherein observed that even though the deceased was having a learners licence, he was not carrying a pillion rider who had not holding a valid driving licence as per the M.V.Act, thereby committing a breach of law under clause No.10(b)(iv) of the policy conditions. In the present case, as the Complainants No.1 and 2 failed to submit the valid driving licence of the deceased, proves that the deceased insured was driving
Contd…5
-5-
the vehicle without a valid driving licence at the time of accident, for that reason the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not pay the accidental death benefit.
11. In the light of the above discussions and observations, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in not paying the accidental death benefit to the Complainants No.1 and 2.
12. POINT Nos.2 & 3:
In the light of findings under Point No.1, the Complainants are not entitled for accidental death benefits of the deceased, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 15th day of April, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainants: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of Complainant No.1. Affidavit of Sri V.Vijaya Saradhi,
Manager,(L&H.P.F.)LIC of India,
Secunderabad Divisional Office.
(On behalf of Opposite Parties).
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainants:
1) Ex.A-1: Dt.04/12/2011 Xerox copy of F.I.R. in
Cr.No.200/2011 of PS.Nakrekal.
2) Ex.A-2: Dt.04/12/2011 Xerox copy of Post Mortem Report.
Contd…6
-6-
3) Ex.A-3: Dt.15/12/2011 Xerox copy of Chargesheet.
4) Ex.A-4: Dt.01/11/2013 O/c of Legal Notice, dated 01/11/2013
issued by counsel for the Complainants to
the Opposite Party No.1.
5) Ex.A-5: Dt.24/06/2014 O/c of Legal Notice, dated 24/06/2014
issued by counsel for the Complainants to
the Opposite Party No.1.
6) Ex.A-6: Dt.26/08/2014 O/c of Legal Notice, dated 26/08/2014
issued by counsel for the Complainants to
the Opposite Party No.1.
7) Ex.A-7: Dt.05/11/2013 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1
to the counsel for the Complainants.
8) Ex.A-8: Dt.02/07/2014 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1
to the counsel for the Complainants.
9) Ex.A-9: Dt.02/09/2014 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1
to the counsel for the Complainants.
For Opposite Parties:
1) Ex.B-1: Dt.05/11/2013 O/c of Letter addressed by the Opposite
Party No.1 to the counsel for the
Complainants.
2) Ex.B-2: Dt.02/09/2014 O/c of Letter addressed by the Opposite
Party No.1 to the counsel for the
Complainants.
3) Ex.B-3: Dt.28/02/2007 Attested copy of Jeevan Anand Policy,
bearing Policy No.603061967.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri G.Amarendar Reddy,
Advocate for the Complainants.
2). Sri K.Anantha Reddy,
Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1&2.
