Date of filing:06.08.2012
Date of disposal:24.03.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 24th day of March, 2014
C.C.No.61/2012
Between:
Neeruganti Aswathamma,
W/o Late N.Narasimhappa,
D.No.3-6, Kalipi,
Roddam Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank,Penukonda,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. Zonal Manager,
Andhra Bank,
Zonal Office, Bellary Road,
Kurnool.
3. Divisional Manager,
Unite India Insurance Company Limited,
Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri H.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Dasari Sreedhar, Advocate for the 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd opposite party called absent and set exparte and Sri V.Krishna Sarma, Advocate for the 3rd 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, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards sum assured and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.1500/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant’s husband by name Neeruganti Narasimhappa has opened S.B. Account in the Branch of 1st opposite party and the S.B.Account No.090210100020083 on 26.02.2010. The complainant is the nominee of the said account. At the time of opening of S.B.Account the 1st opposite party staff promised that there is an accident insurance coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- to the said S.B.Account holders. Subsequently the complainant’s husband met with an road accident on Hindupur Parigi road in front of M.H.Inayathulla Iron Mart, Hindupur Town on 09.02.2012 at about 11.15 A.M. After the accident the complainant’s husband was shifted to Government Hospital Hindupur for treatment and on the advice of Government Hospital Doctors the injured was shifted to Bangalore for better treatment but the Bangalore Doctors advised to shift back to Hindupur and he was shifted to Hindupur Government Hospital and he succumbed on 9.30 P.M. on 10.02.2012 at Government Hospital Hindupur. Then the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint before S.H.O. I Town P.S. Hindupur and a case was registered against the driver of TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-02-S-4343 under section 304 (A) IPC in Crime No.13/2012. After the death of the complainant’s husband a postmortem was conducted by the Government Hospital Doctors.
3. Later the complainant with her sons approached the 1st opposite party in the month of March, 2012 to make a claim under the policy. On the advice of the 1st opposite party the complainant opened a savings bank account in their branch. Then the 1st opposite party advised the complainant to meet after one month for payment. Later the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and she was told that the death certificate and F.I.R. which were submitted by her were sent to Head Office to process the claim. Finally in the first week of July the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and demanded for payment of accident insurance amount. But the 1st opposite party has refused to pay the amount on the ground that the complainant did not die due to accident. Hence they are not liable.
4. The 1st opposite party filed counter stating that it is true that the complainant’s husband opened an S.B. Account under Abhaya Savings Plus scheme and the sum assured under the said account is Rs.50,000/- only in case of accidental death of the account holder. The 1st opposite party collected Rs.18/- towards insurance premium and Rs.20/- insurance charges and the same was debited from the deceased account. The 1st opposite party submits that there were oral talks between the complainant and Bank officials and they have informed the complainant that the sum assured under the Abhaya Savings Plus account is Rs.50,000/- only and they are ready to pay the same but not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. Inspsite of their oral talks the complainant did not make any claim and filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties.
5. The 2nd opposite party called absent and set exparte.
6. The 3rd opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant has to prove that she is the only legal heir of the deceased and she is the nominee for the Abhaya Savings Plus account. Further the 3rd opposite party submits that the allegation that the deceased died due to accident on 10.02.2012 at Hindupur is to be proved by the complainant. The 3rd opposite party submits that there is absolutely no claim made by the complainant hence there is no deficiency of service on the party of the 3rd opposite party. Further the 3rd opposite party submits that the complainant did not furnish any policy number under which the deceased is covered and there is no claim made by the complainant, hence they are not at all liable to pay the sum assured under the policy and there is no deficiency of service on their part.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1to 3?
ii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A10 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1document. On behalf of the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B2document.
9. Heard both sides
10. POINT NO1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s husband during this life time opened a savings bank account in the 1st opposite party branch under the said account and there is an insurance coverage for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in case of accidental death of the account holder. Further the counsel submitted that there is no dispute with regard to opening of the S.B.Account. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s husband died in a road accident which occurred in Hindupur Town on 09.02.2012. Later the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Hindupur and the injured died on 10.02.2012 in the Government Hospital, Hindupur and a case was registered by S.H.O I Town P.S. Hindupur in Crime No.13/2012.
11. The counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant after the death of her husband has approached the 1st opposite party in the month of March, 2012 for making a claim. At that time after oral talks with the 1st opposite party the complainant opened an S.B.Account in the 1st opposite party branch. On the advice of the 1st opposite party the complainant to come after one month so as to settle the claim. Again the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party staff said that they were ready to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the Abhaya Savings Plus scheme and not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The counsel for the complainant submitted that as the 1st opposite party has refused to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from the date of death of deceased till the date of realization.
12. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that there is no dispute with regard to opening of account by the complainant’s husband and the said account is Abhaya Savings Plus Scheme but not Abhaya Gold as contended by the complainant and as per the Abhaya Savings Plus Scheme the account holder is insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in case of accidental death of the account holder the said sum is paid to the nominee of the account holder. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that when the complainant approached the 1st opposite part for the insurance sum they have in detail explained the Abhaya Savings Plus account details and adviced the complainant that she was only eligible for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/-. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that after oral talks with the complainant, the complainant returned and there was no claim made by the complainant and filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties. Further the counsel for the 1st opposite party filed a document which is marked as Ex.B1 which clearly shows that the coverage for the Abhaya Savings Plus is only Rs.50,000/- and not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant.
13. The counsel for the 3rd opposite party submitted that the complainant did not make any claim for the sum assured and filed this unjust complaint for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- against the opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party submitted that without making a claim how the 3rd opposite party is liable for nonpayment of the sum assured as per the complainant’s version. The counsel for the 3rd opposite part filed the mutual agreement i.e., Memorandum of Understanding between the 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party, which is marked as Ex.B2.The counsel for 3rd opposite party argued that when the sum assured under the said policy was only Rs.50,000/- the complainant is entitled to only Rs.50,000/- but not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed. Further argued that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. There was only oral talks between the complainant and the 1st opposite party with regard to the compensation but without making a claim the complainant filed this unjust complaint for wrongful gain, hence the 3rd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
14. After hearing the arguments of the complainant and the opposite parties and perusing the documents it is an admitted fact that the complainant’s husband has opened an account in Abhaya Savings Plus Scheme for which there will be an insurance coverage of Rs.50,000/- as mentioned in Ex.B1. And there is no dispute with regard to death of the complainant’s husband as the complainant has filed the F.I.R. and the Postmortem report and the death certificate of the deceased. It is evident from the arguments of both counsel that there were oral talks between the complainant and the 1st opposite party officials with regard to the amount of compensation for the said scheme. During the oral talks the 1st opposite party officials had said to the complainant that the complainant was eligible for compensation of Rs.50,000/- only but not Rs.1,00,000/- as expected by her. As the negotiations between them failed the complainant did not make any claim to the 1st opposite party and filed this complaint claiming for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- though she is eligible for a sum of Rs.50,000/-only as per Abhaya Savings Plus Scheme in which the deceased opened an account.
15. After taking into consideration of the above arguments we are of the view that the complainant has mistaken and made a claim for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- though she was eligible only for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per Ex.B1 document which clearly shows that Abhaya Savings Plus Scheme account holder is entitle only for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death. Further the complainant did not make claim at all and filed this complaint for a sum of RS.1,00,000/- against the opposite parties as the complainant did not make a claim at all there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. And the opposite parties are ready to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per the policy conditions. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parties are at no fault and the opposite parties are not liable to pay interest as there is no claim made by the complainant. In view of the above observations there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
16. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards sum assured under the policy and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- toward costs of thelitigationwithin one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 24th day of March, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
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 COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Savings Pass Book issued by the 1st opposite party in
favour of the deceased N.Narasimhappa.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of F.I.R. in crime No.13/2012 of Hindupur P.S.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Post Mortem relating to deceased N.Narasimhappa issued
by the Civil Assistant Surgeon District Hospital, Hindupur.
Ex.A4 Phoro copy inquest report relating to deceased N.Narasimhappa.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of death certificate relating to deceased N.Narasimhappa
issued by the Commissioner- Registrar of Birth and Death.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of paper publication relating to death of N.Narasimhappa.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of family members certificate relating to deceased
N.Narasimhappa issued by Tahsildar, Roddam.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Savings Bank Pass Book issued by 1st opposite party in
favour the complainant
Ex.A9 Office copy of the legal notice dt.11.07.2012 got issued by the
complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A10 Postal acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 photo copy of Abhaya Gold Savings Bank deposits details.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B2 Photo copy of memorandum of understating dt.31.10.2011 executed
between the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
