BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 3rd day of February, 2012
C.C.No.117/2011
Between:
P.Mubeena,W/o Late P.Ammasa,
Resident of H.No.3/39,Pasupula Village and Post, Kurnool Mandal,
Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India,
H.No.40-36-3,Branch No.656,River View Colony,Kurnool District - 518 004.
...Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri Mohd Akram, Advocate for complainant and Sri L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 117/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 Praying to direct the opposite party :-
- To pay insured amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of du till the date of realization;
- To grant a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the damages for causing mental agony to the complainant by the opposite party by not settling the claim;
- To grant cost of the complaint Rs.5,000/-;
And
- To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the widow of Late P.Ammasa who died on 22-02-2009. During the life time of Late P.Ammasa he took insurance policy bearing No.65515809 for assured amount of Rs.50,000/-. The said policy was taken on 15-12-2008. The policy holder Late P.Ammasa died on 22-02-2009. The complainant is the nominee under the policy. After the death of the policy holder the complainant who is the wife of Late P.Ammasa approached the opposite party for payment of the assured sum. The opposite party not paid the amount to the complainant. The complainant also got issued lawyers notice dated 22-06-2010. The opposite party received the notice but did not give any reply. The nonpayment of the policy amount to the complainant by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party issued the policy bearing No.655158409 in favour of Late P.Ammasa for assured amount of Rs.50,000/-. The date of commencement of the policy was 15-12-2008. The complainant who is the wife of the Late P.Ammasa is the nominee under the policy. The claim of the complainant under the policy was admitted subject to production of original policy bond by the complainant. The complainant did not submit the original policy bond. The application of the complainant is pending for want of submission of original policy bond. The complainant is entitled for assured amount of Rs.50,000/- only. The complainant is not entitled for any amount under any other head. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly Late P.Ammasa who is the husband of the complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No. 655158409 dated 15-12-2008 from the opposite party. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A1 is the copy of the policy bond issued by the opposite party in favour of Late P.Ammasa. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. It is the case of the complainant that her husband who is the policy holder died on 22-02-2009. The complainant in her sworn affidavit clearly stated that her husband died on 22-02-2009. The complainant also filed Ex.A4 death certificate of Late P.Ammasa issued by Registrar of Births and Deaths Kurnool. In Ex.A4 it is mentioned that Late P.Ammasa died on 22-02-2009.
8. It is the case of the complainant that after the death of her husband she approached the opposite party for payment of assured amount and that the opposite party failed to pay the same inspite of legal notice got issued. The main contention of the opposite party is that the claim of the complainant is pending for non production of the policy bond. Admittedly the complainant did not produce the original policy bond before the opposite party. Along with the complainant the complainant filed Ex.A1 copy of the policy bond obtained by her under R.T.I. Act. The complainant did not give any explanation for her failure to produce the original policy bond. Admittedly the complainant is the nominee under the policy she is entitled to receive the assured amount under the policy. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that the parents of the deceased are also entitled for a shame in the assured amount and that the complainant filed the present complainant in order to gain wrongfully. Admittedly the parents of the deceased did not come forward claiming the assured amount. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant cited a decision reported in AIR 1995 ALLAHABAD 299. In the said decision it is held that the nominee under the policy is entitled to receive payment without obtaining succession certificate. In the present case on hand the opposite party admitted that the complainant is entitled for the assured amount under the policy. The amount was not paid to the complainant as she failed to produce the original policy bond. The complainant being a nominee under the policy is authorized to receive the amount. On receipt of the said amount the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. No doubt the contention raised by the opposite party is sound and reasonable. The payment of the assured amount to the complainant was delayed since the complainant failed to produce the original policy bond. There is some justification on the part of the opposite party in demanding the complainant to produce the original policy bond. The opposite party is under obligation to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant who is a nominee. In the circumstance we think it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant who is a nominee under the policy within one month from the date of the order along with cost of Rs.500/-.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 3rd day of February, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.655158409
dated 15-12-2008.
Ex.A2. Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22-06-2010.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.A4 Death Certificate issued by Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool
dated 31-03-2009.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Status Report of policy No.655158409.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
