Date of Filing : 27.06.2011
Date of Disposal : 26.06.2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Tuesday, the 26th day of June, 2012
C.C.No.121/2011
Between:
1. K.Saritha W/o K.Prakash Reddy,
T.Thimmapuram Village,
H/o Chinna Polamada,
Tadipatri Mandal,
Anantapur District.
2. K.Ramakrishna Reddy S/o K.Peddaiah,
T.Thimmapuram Village,
H/o Chinna Polamada,
Tadipatri Mandal,
Anantapur District.
3. K.Bhulakshmi Devi W/o K.Ramakrishna Reddy,
T.Thimmapuram Village,
H/o Chinna Polamada,
Tadipatri Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainants
Vs.
The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Behind Meda Petrol Bunk,
Meda Complex, Subash Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri D.Shyam Prasad and Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu Advocates for the complainant and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards sum assured under policy with interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs.50,000/- from 01.10.2010 to 13.06.2011 for Rs.5,208/-, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of T.Thimmapuram Village H/o Chinna Polamada, Tadipatri Mandal, Anantapur District. The 1st complainant is the wife of the deceased and the 2nd complainant is the father of the deceased and the 3rd complainant is the mother of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy, who insured his life under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance policy bearing No.051004/47/09/434/00000967. The deceased K.Prakash Reddy owns a land measurement Ac.5.00 in survey No.940 and he dug bore well in the said land and got electricity connection from the electricity department under service No.150 in S.F.Nol940 on 18.04.1996. The deceased has taken loan from State Bank of India (ADB), Tadipatri Branch, and at the time of taking the loan he has paid a sum of Rs.45/- towards insurance premium for a period of 3 years on15.09.2009. On 01.10.2010 the deceased K.Prakash Reddy went to his garden for watering the Carry Leaves crop and at that time when he tried to start his electric motor he got an electric shock and died on the spot. The death of the deceased is an accidental death due to electrocution and as the deceased has taken Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy the legal heirs made a claim. The complainants after the death of the deceased filed a complaint in Tadipatri Rural Police Station who registered the case in crime No.143/2010 under section 174 I.P.C. and post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy on 01.10.2010.
3. After that the 2nd complainant has given representation to State Bank of India (ADB) Tadipatri on 05.10.2010 informing the death of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy claming the insurance amount. Subsequently on 07.10.2010 the 2nd complainant got confirmed from the Bank authorities that a letter was wrote to the opposite party claiming the insurance amount. Subsequently, the Sub- Division Police Officer has given the proceedings to drop the action, as the deceased died due to electric shock and the proceedings were given on 29.10.2010. The complainants filed a family certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Tadipatri in support of their claim. The electricity department has also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards exgratia to the 1st complainant after enquiry and confirming that the deceased died only due to accident and that there is no mistake on the part of the deceased. After that the 2nd complainant went to State Bank of India (ADB), Tadipatri, to enquire about his claim with regard to settlement of the insurance amount. Subsequently on 11.04.2011 the 1st complainant received a letter from the opposite party stating that the claim of the complainant is repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that as the deceased has committed breach of law with an criminal intent and they have given intimation on 28.10.2010 though the said K.Prakash Reddy died on 01.10.2010 i.e., after a lapse of 28 days. On these two grounds the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainants. The complainants submits that, in fact the FIR and certificates given by the Village Revenue Officer and Sarpanch of respective villages and also third party affidavits of the neighbouring land owners clearly and categorically establishes the fact that the deceased died only due to an accident (electrocution) when he went to water his lands on 01.10.2010. So there is absolutely no breach of law by the deceased K.Prakash Reddy. Apart from that after the death of the deceased on 01.10.2010 the 2nd complainant has given representation to the Bank authorities claiming compensation on 05.10.2010 from the date of death of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy. So the second point under the repudiation letter given by the opposite party has no legal sanctity and the opposite party ought to have given compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
4. The opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the State Bank of India (ADB), Tadipatri Branch from which, the deceased has availed loan, is not added as a necessary party to the proceedings and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The opposite party submits that the deceased K.Prakash Reddy has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy by deliberately participating in the criminal, illegal and unauthorisedly connecting the service wires of the motor to live wire and in the process he was electrocuted. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainants under the said policy of insurance. The opposite party submits that the said incident occurred, while the deceased was extending the LT supply to his agricultural motor service bearing No.150 from near by LT overhead lines under T.Thimmapuram Village SS III 63 KVA DTR and while the deceased hooking the service wires of his agricultural motor to the LT line died due to electrocution. After hooking two wires to the LT line the third wire came in contact with the deceased and got electric shock and he died on the spot. Under the said circumstances there cannot be any liability on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party further submits that there is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the death of the deceased in the said incident and that the complainants have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said policy as such the opposite part is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants under the said policy.
5. The allegations in the complaint are that the death of the deceased is an accidental death and that the deceased died due to electric shock, when the deceased was trying to start motor for watering the crop is far way from truth and the said allegations are invented only for the purpose of this unjust complaint. The allegations made by the complainant that the electricity department has also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards exgratia to the 1st complainant after enquiry and confirming that the deceased died only due to accident and there is no mistake on the part of the deceased are hereby denied and even that if the exgratia is paid it is only on humanitarian grounds only. In the above circumstances the opposite party has rejected the claim of the complainants on certain facts and there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party
ii) To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the complainants have filed their evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A15 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B12 documents.
8. Heard both sides
9. POINT NO 1:- The case of the complainants is that the deceased K.Prakash Reddy died on 01.10.2010 while attempting to start his motor for watering his fields due to electrocution. The deceased K.Prakash Reddy has taken a loan in State Bank of India (ADB) Tadipatri and at the time of taking loan had paid insurance premium amount of Rs.45/- on 15.09.2009 for a period of three years and the sum assured of Rs.50,000/- in case of the death of the insured in an accident. The opposite part has allotted a Janatha Personal Accident Insurance policy bearing No.051004/47/09/434/00000967. The counsel for the complainant argued that the deceased died while starting the electrical motor due to electrocution. As the death occurred is an accident and the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased under the said policy. A complaint was also filed in Tadipatri Rural Police Station who registered the crime No.143/201o under section 174 I.P.C. and postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased on the same day. After that the 2nd complainant submitted a representation to State Bank of India (ADB), Tadipatri on 05.10.2010 regarding the death of his son. At that time the staff of the State Bank of India (ADB) informed that they will write a letter to the opposite party and see that the amount will be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy. Subsequently the Sub-Divisional Police Officer has given the proceedings to drop the action as the deceased died due to electric shock and the proceedings were given on 29.10.2010. The counsel for complainant argued that the exgratia of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the electricity board vide memo No.CGM/KZ/KNL/DE-TECH-SA/D.NO.132 Dt.18.04.2011 vide sanction No.114/2010-11 of CGM/OP/KZ/KNL which is Ex.A12, which shows that the deceased died due to electrocution accidentally.
10. Subsequently the 1st complainant received a letter on 11.04.2011 from the opposite part stating that the complainants claim is repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the deceased has committed breach of law with a criminal intent and they have given intimation on 28.10.2010 though the said K.Prakash Reddy died on 01.10.2010 i.e., after a lapse of 28 days. The counsel for the complainant argued that the 2nd complainant has intimated the death of the deceased on 05.10.2010 itself and the same was forwarded by State Bank of India (ADB) Tadipatri to the opposite party. Hence there is no delay in intimating the death of the deceased K.Prakash Reddy. In the above circumstances the repudiation of the claim is illegal and the opposite party is liable to pay the sum assured.
11. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the deceased K.Prakash Reddy died due to electrical shock while he was hooking the wires to the LT line and in the process two wires were hooked and the deceased came in contact with third wire and died due to electrocution which is an illegal act.
12. After hearing the arguments of both the counsels and after perusing the documents as per Ex.B10 document which is the statement of AE/Rural which is issued by APCPDCL Tadipatri wherein it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died while hooking the service wires of his agricultural motor to the LT line and in the process of hooking the third wire he came in contact with live wire and died on the spot. Further as per Ex.A11 which is a letter written to P.A.C. Tadipatri by the 2nd complainant wherein the 2ndcomplainant clearly mentioned that the hooking of service wires to the LT line was a common practice in their village and the deceased died due to electric shock on the fateful day while hooking the service wires to the LT line which is an illegal act. As per the terms and conditions of the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy under exclusions clause (d) (d) wherein it is clearly mentioned that “the death arising out of or resulting from the insured committing any breach of law with criminal intent”. (It clearly applies to the instant case and hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount in the said policy amount to the nominees of the deceased). And another document addressed to Sub-Divisional Police Officer by Sub-Inspector of Police filed by the opposite party which is Ex.B5 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died while connecting the wires of motor to the live line accidentally got electric shock and died on the spot by sustaining electrical burns on the chest, right hand index finger, left hand index finger. All the three exhibits clearly establish that the deceased died while hooking the service wires of the motor to the LT line and in the process got electrocuted which is an illegal act.
13. In the above circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation of the policy amount to the nominees as the deceased has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
14. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 26th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1 Photo copy of receipt Dt.15.09.2009 for Rs.2047.50 issued by
S.B.I.Tadipatri.
Ex.A2 Power release certificate issued by Assistant Engineer
APCPDCL (operation)
Ex.A3 Original receipts issued of Central Power Distribution Company Limited.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of F.I.R. in crime No.143/2010 of Tadipatri Rural Police.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Post Mortem Certificate relating to deceased K.Prakash
Reddy.
Ex.A6 Attested copy of proceeding of Sub-Divisional Police Officer Tadipatri
dt.29.10.2010.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Death Certificate relating to decased K.Prakash Reddy
issued by the panchyat secretary Ravivenkatampalli Village, Tadipatri
dt.13.10.2010.
Ex.A8 Letter dt.01.06.2011 issued by Village Revenue Officer, Chinna palamada
Village, Tadipatri Mandal.
Ex.A9 Letter issued by Sarpanch Gramapanchyat Ravivenkatampalli Village.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of family members certificate dt.26.10.2010 issued by
Tahsildar, Tadipatri.
Ex.A11 Letter dt.05.10.2010 given by K.Ramakrishna Reddy to Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Tadipatri.
Ex.A12 Photo copy of cash receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- given by the
1st complainant to the Assistant Divisional Engineer Operation,
Tadipatri.
Ex.A13 Photo copy of Pattadar Passbook relating deceased K.Prakash Reddy
issued by the Tahsildar, Tadipatri.
Ex.A14 Paper publication relating to death of deceased K.Prakash Reddy.
Ex.A15 Letter dt.11.04.2011 issued by opposite party to the complainant
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Certified true copy of the Kisan Credit Card Scheme policy issued by the
opposite party.
Ex.B2 Attested copy of the F.I.R. in crime No.143/2010 under section 174
Cr.P.C. of Tadipatri Rural Police Station.
ExB3 Attested copy of the Inquest Report relating to the deceased K.Prakash
Reddy.
Ex.B4 Attested copy of the post mortem certificate relating to decease
K.Prakahs Reddy.
Ex.B5 Attested copy of letter dt.26.10.2010 sent by Sub-inspector of police
Tadipatri to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri.
Ex.B6 Attested copy of proceeding of Sub-Divisional Police Officer Tadipatri
dt.29.10.2010.
Ex.B7 Attested true copy of sketch relating to accident occurred in respect of
deceased K.Prakash Reddy.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Preliminary report submitted by Assistant Divisional
Engineer APCPDCL, Tadipatri.
Ex.B9 Attested copy submitted by Assistant Divisional Engineer APCPDCL,
Tadipatri.
Ex.B10 Attested true copy of statement of Assistant Engineer Rural APCPDCL
Tadipatri.
Ex.B11 Letter dt.11.04.2011 sent by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B12 Form of application intimation of claim submitted by the
2nd complainant.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
