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
Tuesday the 29th day of March, 2005
C.D.No. 64/2004
Smt V.Savithramma,
W/o Late Gopal Reddy,
R/o Kothakota (V),
Dhone (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . .Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri M.L. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate
-Vs-
1.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Pyapily,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by his counsel
Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy.Advocate
2. The Divisional Manger,
M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented by his counsel
M/s C.M.K. Ranjani, Advocate
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 C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with all benefits and with 18% interest per annum from the date of death, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that her husband by name Late H.Gopal Reddy was holder of Kissan Credit Card in opposite party No.1 Bank, opposite party No.1 informed all card holders that they are covered under Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs.50,000/- for a period of two years from the date of sanctioning of loan by opposite party No.1 to Kissan Credit Card holders and necessary premium was collected from the card holders. The complainant’s husband availed loan from opposite party No.1 on 11.9.2001 and died in a road accident on 23.9.2001. The complainant immediately submitted all documents to opposite party No.1for accident benefit from opposite party No.2, but the opposite parties are postponing on the pretext or other and the complainant got issued Lawyers notice on 19.5.2004 to opposite parties and opposite party No.2
replied dt 24.5.2004 denying all its liabilities that the policy bearing No. 051100/47/02/00117 issued to Kissan Credit Card holders of opposite party No.1 commenced from 16.10.2002 to 15.10.2004 and it was not in force by 23.9.2001 on the date of death of complainant’s husband. The opposite party No.1 did neither replied to the Lawyers notice nor paid the insured amount. The complainant further submits that the opposite party No.1 informed all its Kissan Credit Card holders about the risk coverage for Rs.50,000/- by opposite party No.2 from the date of taking loan by Kissan Credit Card holders, therefore non issuing of policy from the date of taking loan by Kissan Credit Card holder and non setting of the claim by the opposite parties is held deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents Viz (1) legal notice dt 19.5.2004 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.1& opposite party No.2 (2) Acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 through professional courier services as to the receipt of Ex A.1 and (3) reply given by opposite party No.2 dt 24.5.2004 to Ex A.1, 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.3 for its appreciation in this case and replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1 & caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1& opposite party No.2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling separate written versions and questions the maintainability of the complainants case either in law or on facts and denies all the allegations made in the complaint averments.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that the Kissan Credit Cards to farmers was introduced in the year 2001 and it is valid for 3 years. The Head Office of opposite party No.1 took a decision to cover the existing and prospective Kissan Credit Card holders with Personal Accident Insurance in July- 2002, valid for the period of Kissan Credit Cards. As per the scheme, the opposite party No.1 has to bear 2/3 rd premium i.e Rs.20/- and card holders have to bear remaining balance premium. The opposite party No.1 identified card holders totaling 2,046/- spreading over 19 villages, accordingly on 14.10.2002 opposite party No.1 debited Rs.10/- from the account of all Kissan Credit Card holders, including husband of the complainant, as death of the Kissan Credit Card holder was not intimated to opposite party No.1, in addition to the opposite party No 1’s contributed, sent the required premium on the same day to opposite party No.2 with a request to cover accidental risk of 2046 Kissan Credit Card holders for Rs. 50,000/- each and there after opposite party No.2 issued a policy on 16.10.2002 covering the risk of Kissan Credit Card holders.
6. It further submits the complainant or the legal heirs of card holder Gopal Reddy did not inform about the death of Gopal Reddy on 23.9.2001 and there was no opportunity for opposite party No.1 to know the death of Gopal Reddy. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 & seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint as there is no deficiency of service. It submits that no premium was received by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 or from the deceased during the year 2001 for covering the accidental risk of Kissan Credit Card holders. The opposite party No.2 on 16.10.2002 received a sum of Rs. 75,795/- from opposite party No.1 for covering accidental risk of Kissan Credit Card holders, accordingly the opposite party No.2 issued a policy on 16.10.2002 to 15.10.2003 for covering the accidental risk of Kissan Credit Card holders. The complainant’s husband died on 23.9.2001 and no premium was collected or received by opposite party No.2 from opposite party No.1 for covering the said risk in 2001, therefore the opposite party No.2 is not liable to pay policy amount to the complainant.
8. The opposite party No.2 after receiving lawyer’s notice of the complainant gave reply notice dt 24.5.2004 expressing its inability to entertain her claim as death of the deceased occurred before to the commencement of policy. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.2 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
9. The opposite parties in substantiation of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1) Attested Xerox copy of letter dt 23.7.2002 addressed by Chief G.M (D.M), Mumbai, S.B.I to the Chief G.M State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad (2) attested Xerox copy of letter dt 20.8.2002 of Asst G.M, State Bank of India, Secunderabad to the Chief/Branch Manager, S.B.I.(3) Letter dt 14.10.2002 of opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 along with list (4) receipt of the policy (5) policy No. 051100/47/02/00117 of Kissan Credit Card Holders issued by opposite party No.2 (6) loan ledger (7) Repudiation letter dt 24.5.2004 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 (8) Conditions of Master Policy Holders and (9) letter dt 27.11.2003 of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1& 2 in reiteration of their written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.9 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties 1&2 suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant.
10. Hence, the point for consideration is to whether the complainant is remaining entitled to the reliefs sought in the complaint:-
11. It is simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party No1 & 2 for non payment of policy amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant alleges that her husband H.Gopal Reddy is Kissan Credit Card holder in opposite party No.1 Bank and took loan on 11.9.2001 and further alleges the said Kissan Credit Card loan is covered under Personal Accident Policy of opposite party No.2 and the said Gopal Reddy died on 23.9.2001 in road accident and the complainant is entitled to policy amount of said Goapl Reddy but as against to it the written version of opposite party No.2 in its averenmnts in para 5 alleges that opposite party No.1 through its letter dt 14.10.2002 in Ex B.3 sent Rs. 75,975/- to opposite party No.2 and it was received on 16.10.2002, immediately a policy was issued by opposite party No.2 on the same day i.e on 16.10.2002 to 15.10.2003 for covering the accidental risk of Kisssan Credit Card holders. Admitedly, the complainant husband died on 23.9.2001 and no premium was received nor any policy was in force during the year 2001 and the complainant did neither placed any material as to the payment of premium during the year 2001 nor as to the commencement of the policy in the year 2001. Therefore, the death of said Gopal Reddy is not covered under the above said policy issued by opposite party No.2, therefore, the complainant is not remaining entitled to the policy amount. The complainant in substantiation of her allegations did not place any cogent supporting material such as policy bond or terms and condition or particulars of commencement of policy. In the absence of any supporting material substantiating her allegations and as in the Ex A.5 the policy was issued on 16.10.2002 for a period of one year from 16.10.2002 to 13.10.2003 and the death of Kissan Credit Card holder H.Gopal Reddy occurred on 23.9.2001 i.e before the issuance of the policy by the opposite party No.2. Hence, it is clear from the above that the said Kissan Credit Card holder is not covered under the above said policy issued by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above there appears no error, defect or deficiency on part of opposite party No.2 in expressing its inability to entertain the complainant’s claim.
12. Therefore, in conclusion of the above discussion as the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action, the complainant cannot have any remedy as sought for from the opposite parties.
13. In the result there being no merit and force in the case of the complainant, it is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 29th day of March, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
