BETWEEN:

1. Erukalapati Rama Devi,

    W/o Late Srinivasa Rao,

2. Erukalapati Mahesh,

    S/o Late Srinivasa Rao,

3. Erukalapati Yamini,

    D/o Late Srinivasa Rao,

4. Erukalapati Nagamma,

    W/o Venkateswaralu,

    2 & 3 being minors rep. by mother

    1^st complainant as guardian,

     R/o Jupudi, Amaravathi Mandal,

     Guntur district.                                                       …Complainants 

AND

1. The Divisional Manager,

    United India Insurance Company Limited,

    Kubera Towers, 15//1 Arundelpet,

    Guntur.

2. Chief Executive Officer,

    GDCC Bank Limited,

    2/13 Brodipet, Guntur.

3. Chief Executive Officer,

    Munagodu Primary Agricultural Co-operative

      Society Limited, Turagavaripalem,

      Via Bayyaram post, Amaravathi Mandal,

      Guntur district.                                             …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     03-06-11 in the presence of Sri J. Nageswara Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri G. Srinivasu, advocate for 1^st opposite party                        and of Sri N. Venkateswarlu, advocate for opposite parties 2 and 3, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation besides costs.

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainants 2 to 4 are children of the 1^st complainant and her husband Srinivasa Rao.   The said Srinivasa Rao was a member of Kisan Credit Card Holder of the 3^rd opposite party since 1999.   The said Srinivasa Rao was having 2.6 cents of land at Jupudi village and availed credit facility from the 3^rd opposite party for agriculture.   The 1^st opposite party issued policy bearing No.15080047084300000017 in favour of opposite parties covering the risk of credit card holders during 2008 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each.   The said Srinivasa Rao died due to snake bite on 20-09-08 and it can be termed as accident.   The complainants informed the same to the 1^st opposite party and submitted necessary claim forms, who in turn sent them to the 1^st opposite party by their letter dated 30-10-08.   On 15-05-09 the 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the deceased was not holding pattadar pass book or registered title deeds.   The said repudiation is baseless.   The said conduct of the 1^st opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.

3.    The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the               3^rd opposite party and the contents of the version in brief are hereunder:      

        Y. Srinivasa Rao is resident of Jupudi village and died on 20-09-08 due to snake bite.  The said Srinivasa Rao was a member of the 3^rd opposite party and was sanctioned an agricultural loan under Kisan Credit Card scheme.   As per the scheme the said  Srinivasa Rao was covered with risk of insurance for Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy No. 15080047084300000017 issued by the 1^st opposite party.   2^nd opposite party remitted the insurance premium with the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party entered into an agreement with the 2^nd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party sent the claim papers with relevant documents in time to the 1^st opposite party to settle the claim.  Opposite parties 2 and 3 did not commit any deficiency of service.

4.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party is hereunder:

          The complaint is barred by limitation and as such the complaint is not maintainable.  After receiving the intimation from the 3^rd opposite party regarding the death of the said Srinivasa Rao  the 1^st opposite party issued claim form and requested them to return it duly filled.   Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties 2 and 3 did not sent pattadar pass book or land title deeds of the said Srinivasa Rao   The investigation of the 1^st opposite party revealed that the said Srinivasa Rao  did not possess any agricultural land.   The 1^st opposite party is therefore justified in repudiating the claim and as such was no deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.    

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-20 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 and Exs.B-5 and B-6 on behalf of   1^st opposite party were marked.    

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by time?
2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service and if so by whom?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
4. To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:-  The 1^st opposite party repudiated the claim on 15-05-09 as seen from Ex.A-16.   As the complaint was filed on 10-03-10 it is well in time.   Therefore the said contention of the opposite party is devoid of merit.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

7.    POINT No.2:-    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that neither the complainant nor the 1^st opposite party failed to submit pattadar passbook or land title deeds.   Opposite parties 2 and 3 admitted that the deceased was having Kisan Credit Card and was a member of 3^rd opposite party at the time of his death.   Ex.A-1 policy is an unnamed policy.   The policy period was from 24-04-08 to           23-04-09.   The death of the insured took place on 20-09-08 due to snake bite as seen from Ex.A-4 final medical opinion.

8.    Ex.A-1 policy binds all the parties.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-1 is extracted below for better appreciation:

                “Whereas the insured named in the schedule below has made or caused to be made to United India Insurance Company Limited, (herein after called ‘the company’) a written proposal as per the schedule herein (warranting the truth of the statements contained therein) which is the basis of this contract and is deemed to be incorporated herein and has paid to the company the premium therein stated for the insurance of the risk hereinafter specified occurring during the period stated in the schedule.  Now this policy witnesseth that subject to the terms, exclusions, definitions and conditions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon, the company will indemnify the insured as hereinafter mentioned.

                If the insured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accident caused by external violent and visible means, then the company shall pay to the insured the sum hereinafter set forth that is to say-

                If such injury shall within 12 calendar months of its occurrence be the sole and direct cause of:

1. Death of the insured (KCC holders) – the capital sum insured of Rs.50,000/- is payable under this clause.
2. Permanently, totally and absolutely disabling the insured from engaging in, being occupied with or giving attention to any employment or occupation of any description – the capital sum insured of RS.50,000/- is payable under this clause.
3. Total and irrecoverable loss of sight of both eyes or loss of use of two hands or two feet or one hand and one foot or one eye and one limb – the capital sum insured of Rs.50,000/- is payable under this clause.
4. Total and irrecoverable loss of sight of one eye or one limb – 50% of the capital sum insured Rs.25,000/- is payable under this clause”. 

9.     Since the death occurred within 12 months an amount of Rs.50,000/- alone was payable.  Ex.A-9 is copy of adangal (Xerox copy of adangal issued by the village revenue officer, Jupudi) for the fasali 1418 wherein it was mentioned that the deceased Srinivasa Rao inherited 2.6 cents of land from his father and was enjoying.   Ex.A-9 revealed that the said Srinivasa Rao was an agriculturist.   When the opposite parties 2 and 3 forwarded the claim of the complainants, I see no reason for the 1^st opposite party to repudiate it on the ground for not supplying pattadar passbook or land title deeds of the deceased.  Therefore we opine that the said repudiation is not justified.  In view of the aforementioned discussion we hold that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service.  In view of he terms and conditions of the insurance policy the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay Rs.50,000/- only as the death took place within six months of taking the policy. Hence, this point is answered against the 1^st opposite party.     

10.  POINT No.3:-   The 1^st opposite party on 30-10-08 sought the 3^rd opposite party to send the documents mentioned in it (Ex.A-2).   The 1^st opposite party sent reply(Ex.A-16) on 15-05-09.   Thus there was a gap of about 7 months and it is unreasonable.  Under those circumstances awarding interest at 9% p.a., from                   01-01-09 will meet ends of justice.   The repudiation of claim by the 1^st opposite party on flimsy ground caused mental agony to the complainant.  Under those circumstances awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.   

11.       The complainants two to four are minors.  The complainants are class I heirs of the deceased Srinivasa Rao and as such they are entitled to share the amount equally.  The amount payable to the minors be kept in a fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank and the             1^st complainant is entitled to utilize the interest on it.   

12.  POINT No.4:- In view of above findings, in the result, the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

        1.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-                           (Rupees fifty thousand only) together with interest     

                 at 9% p.a., from 01-01-09 till payment.

2.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-                        (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation.

3. The amounts awarded under clauses 1 and 2 be shared                                equally among the complainants.

4. The complainants 1 and 4 can withdraw the amount                             immediately on deposit.

5. The amount payable to the complainants 2 and 3 is to be kept              in a Nationalised Bank for two years and they are entitled to                  take after attaining majority.

6.  The 1^st complainant is entitled to utilize the interest accrued                       on the amounts so deposited payable to the complainants                    2 and 3.

7. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-                         (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.

8.  The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of                         six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 17th day of June, 2011.         

Sd/-XXX                                   Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties 2 and 3:        

For 1^st opposite parties:        

                                                                                Sd/-XXX

                                                                                PRESIDENT