Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/11/34

Bhaskar S/o Venkataswamy and Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, and Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Venkateshwarlu

19 Jul 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 19^th day of July, 2011

Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member

Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 34 Of 2011

Between:-

1. Bhaskar S/o Venkataswamy, age about 16 years, Occ: Student,

2. Sony D/o Venkataswamy, age 12 years, Occ: Student,

Both R/o Gummakonda village of Thimmajipet Mandal, represented by

their grand father and next friend Beerapaga Purushotham S/o Maisaiah,

age 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gummakonda village of Thimmajipet

Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. … Complainants

And

1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Above Syndicate

Bank, Near RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

2. S. Nagender S/o Not known, age: Major, Occ: Founder President, Peoples

Organization for Self Help, D.No.2-1-9/4, Sai Teja Complex, Upstairs,

Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar. … Opposite Parties

This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 12-7-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri M. Venkatramulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP-2 and OP-1 having been set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

(Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant Nos.1 and 2 being the minors represented by their maternal grand father under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the claim amount and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation together with future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the late Jayamma i.e., on 22-6-2009 to the complainants.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The complainants are the children of Venkataswamy and Smt. Jayamma. During her life time the said Jayamma had taken the policy with the OP-1 vide Policy No.431103/48/2009/1838 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the help of OP-2 a Founder President of Peoples Organization for Self Help. Subsequently the policy holder Jayamma was killed by her husband itself and to that effect a criminal case is also registered in Cr.No.69/2009 by the police of Thimmajipet P.S. After the death of their mother Jayamma the complainants through their grand father made several attempts to get the death benefits of the policy and submitted all the relevant documents to the OP-1. The OP-1 having promised and instead of paying the amount sent a letter dated 3-5-2010 stating that the claim file is closed as “No Claim” since the policy holder Jayamma was murdered by her husband itself. Thereupon the complainants got issued a legal notice to the OP-1 on 28-6-2010 demanding for payment of the claim amount. But the OP-1 not complied their notice. Such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.

3. The opposite party No.1 while remained exparte, the opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the cause of death of the policy holder is a murder and not natural death or accidental death and so the OP-1 repudiated the claim as per policy conditions for which this opposite party is not responsible to answer to the claim of the complainants. It is further stated that as per the nature of the death of the policy holder it is the dispute between the complainants and the insurance company as to whether the policy amount is payable or not and so this opposite party is an unnecessary party to the present proceedings and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.

4. Thereupon the grand father of the complainants being their guardian filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of the minor complainants and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On the other hand, the OP-2 having availed sufficient opportunity ultimately failed to file any affidavit evidence on his behalf since the OP-1 already remained exparte and got no documents marked.

5. The points for determination now are:

Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by them?
To what effect?

6. As seen from the material available on record there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the complainants with late Jayamma as her children. There is also no dispute in the matter about late Jayamma during her life time with the help of OP-2 obtained the policy in question for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP-1. It is also an undisputed fact that the after the death of Jayamma the complainants submitted all the required documents to the OP-1 claiming the insured sum and the OP-1 in turn on 3-5-2010 intimated the complainants stating that the claim file is closed as “No Claim” since the policy holder Jayamma was murdered by her husband itself.

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The contention of the learned counsel for the complainants is that as there is a deficiency on the part of both the opposite parties in rendering service to the complainants both the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount covered under the complaint.

8. As far as the case against OP-2 is concerned it is the very case of the complainants that their mother late Jayamma during her life time obtained the policy with the help of OP-2 from the OP-1 and it is the OP-1 ultimately repudiated the claim made by them. It is not the case of the complainants that their late mother during her life time paid the premium amount to the OP-1 through the OP-2. As stated above, it is the simple case of the complainants that their mother obtained the policy from the OP-1 with the help of the OP-2 a Founder President of Peoples Organization for Self Help. Except that there is no allegation against the OP-2 alleging any deficiency or unfair trade practice on his part. At the same time it is also the contention of the OP-2 that the present dispute is only between the complainants and the OP-1 and he is an unnecessary party to the present proceedings. Therefore, we find that the OP-2 is not liable along with OP-1 to comply the relief sought for by the complainants. Hence, we hold that the complaint to the extent of OP-2 is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is no doubt true that the OP-1 is remained exparte. So simply because OP-1 is remained exparte, it does not mean that the complainants are automatically entitled for the relief sought for by them unless and until they establish the deficiency of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1. So, the question that has to be seen now is whether the complainants have established the same or not. It is the case of the complainants that the OP-1 is unjustified in repudiating the claim made by them. It is also no doubt true that as per Ex.A-5 certified copy of the order in Guardian and Wards Petition No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Court at Mahabubnagar the complainants are the L.Rs., of the deceased Jayamma and their grand father through whom they got filed the present complaint is their legal guardian. As per the terms and conditions of the policy if the cause of death of their mother Jayamma is natural or accidental then the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by them. But the very case of the complainants itself is that the policy holder Jayamma was killed by her husband itself and to that effect a criminal case is also registered in Cr.No.69/2009 by the police of Thimmajipet P.S. When such is the case of the complainants and when the cause of death of Jayamma is not her natural death or accidental one and since it is a murder, we find that they cannot allege any deficiency against the OP-1 since it appears that the OP-1 is justified in repudiating the claim made by the complainants. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no merits in the complaint and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed even against OP-1 also and thereby the complainants are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for by them. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainants.

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 19^th day of July, 2011.

I agree I agree

MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT

Appendix of evidence

List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant: On behalf of Opposite Parties:

- Nil - - Nil -

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Policy Schedule.

Ex.A-2: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.28.6.2010.

Ex.A-3: Original Postal Receipt, dt.28.6.2010.

Ex.A-4: Copy of Final Letter, dt.19.5.2010.

Ex.A-5: Certified copy of Order, dt.3.8.2010.

On behalf of OPs.:

- Nil -

PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri M. Venkatramulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP-2.

3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Above Syndicate Bank, Near RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. (OP-1).