Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 9th day of February, 2005
C.D.No. 89/2004
P. Laxmidevamma,
W/o. Late P.Chandrasekhar,
R/o. Nannoor (V),
Orvakal (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri G.Madusudhana Reddy, Advocate
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Gadwal,
Mahaboobnagar Dist. . . . Opposite party
2. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Divisional Office,
5-9-21, Secretariat Road,
Saifabad,
Hyderabad.
3. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.2&3 represented by
Their counsel Sri P.Siva Prasada Reddy.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay accidental benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- covered under the policy bearing No. 643815770 with benefits and interest at the rate 24 percent interest per annum Rs.25,000/- as mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.
- The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainants husband late P.Chandra Shekar Reddy, has obtained an Insurance policy from opposite party No.1 on his life for Rs.1,00,000/- with accidental benefit vide policy bearing No. 643815770. The said P.Chandra Shekar Reddy was murdered on 28.8.2000, on the claim preferred by complainant the opposite party No.1 settled the claim and issued a cheque bearing No. 954219 dt 28.3.2002 infavour of the complainant for Rs.1,23,089/-. Therefore, the complainant made a representation to opposite parties to settle accidental benefit covered under the above said policy, the opposite party No.1 on 13.7.2001 requested the complainant to send FIR and Court verdict to consider accidental benefit. The complainant through her Advocate letter dt 17.10.2003 submitted FIR, Inquest report, P.M certificate and court verdict. But to the dismay of the complainant the opposite party No.2 through its communication dt 31.1.2004 rejected the accidental benefit as the court decided to acquit the accused as no DNA test was conducted and the identity of the body is not established. But the complainant submits the rejection of claim by the opposite parties is baseless and the said rejection is only to avoid payment of accidental benefit. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service on part of opposite party towards the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 13.7.2001 of the opposite party to the complainant (2) letter dt 29.4.2003 of the opposite party to the complainant (3) letter dt 17.10.2003 of the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party and (4) repudiation letter dt 23.1.2004 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of her complaint avernemnts and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 has remained exparte to the case proceedings. The opposite party No.2&3 appeared through their standing counsel and opposite party No.2 filed denial written version and opposite party No.3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties admit the deceased obtaining an Insurance Policy bearing No. 643815770 on his life for Rs.1,00,000/- with accident benefit. The policy holder was said to be murdered on 28.8.2000 and on the claim preferred by the nominee the opposite party settled the claim for Rs.1,23,089/- in favour of the complainant for basic assured sum under the policy along with bonus. On the representation made by the complainant to settle the accidental claim under the above said policy and after receipt of FIR, inquest report, post mortem certificate and court’s verdict from the complainant, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant as the court opined that No DNA test was conducted and identity of the body was not established and acquitted all the accused. So, the death of the deceased doesn’t come under murder. Hence, the double accidental benefit was rejected to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party for the said rejected and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite parties in support of their case did not file any documents, the opposite party No.2 filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and caused interrogators to the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?:-
8. There is no dispute as the deceased P.Chandra Shekar Reddy obtaining an Insurance Policy No. 643815770 for Rs.1,00,000/- with accident benefit and the policy holder died on 28.8.2000. On the demise of the said policy holder P.Chandra Shekar Reddy the opposite parties settled the claim of the complainant to Rs.1,23,089/- for basic assured sum with bonus and rejected the accidental claim through Ex A.4 stating that the court opined that NO DNA test was conducted and identity of the body was not established.
9. Thus the only reason for repudiation of claim for accidental benefit is the alleged demise of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy was not established as NO DNA test was conducted and identity of the body was not established. But the opposite parties in support of the supra reason did not place any documentary record to substantiate their allegation that the demise of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy is not murder. The court opined that NO DNA test was conducted and identity of the body was not established, so it acquitted all the accused. The court did not opined that denise of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy is not due to murder, it has opined the above reason for acquitting the accused, it did not question the demise of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy as is due to murder or not. Therefore, the reason averned by the opposite party in their repudiation letter is not proper, it is unjust and unreasonable.
10. More over, the opposite parties admitting the death of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy on 28.8.2000 and settled the claim of the complainant for assured amount, the case was filed before the Session Court on death of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy due to murder, the court acquitted all the accursed as the case was not proved against them, but it does not mean that the death of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy is not due to murder. When once the opposite parties admitting the death of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy due to murder on 28.8.2000 and settling the claim of assured amount cannot now take a stand that the death of P.Chandra Shekar Reddy is not due to murder. Hence, absolutely there is no material on record in support of the allegations of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant. For want of substantiating material in support of opposite parties allegation, the act of repudiating the claim of the complainant for the accidental benefit by the opposite parties as is remaining without any justifiable excuse. The said conduct of opposite parties is certainly amounting to failure on the part of opposite parties in performing the statutory duty in repudiating the accidental claim and settling the claim for assured amount and thereby amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the accidental benefit under the above said policy of her husband as the bonafides of the complainant’s claim are not other wise disturbed.
11. In the result and in sum up of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the accidental benefit under the policy bearing No. 643815770 of the deceased P.Chandra Shekar Reddy to the complainant with 12 percent interest per annum from the date of demise of the deceased till realization along with costs of Rs.5,000/- and the opposite parties are granted one month time from the date of receipt of this order for compliance.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 9th day of February, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
