KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.532/04 JUDGMENT DATED.1.3.2008 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Sherly Saji, W/o Late Saji, Pallimuruppel House, Chiranickal, -- APPELLANT Kodumon.P.O, Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. (By Adv.Rajeev.S.S) Vs. 1. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Branch Manager, -- RESPONDENTS Life Insurance Corporation of India, Kottarakkara. 3. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Pathanmthitta. (By Adv.S.Narayana Iyer) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated.19.5.04 of the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.No.189/02. The complaint in the said OP.No.189/02 was filed by the appellant as complainant against the respondents 1 to 3 as opposite parties claiming the Insurance amount with respect to the policy of Insurance issued in favour of Saji.P., Kaniyattayyathu House. The aforesaid claim was denied and disputed by the opposite parties, on the ground that the complainant as the nominee of the life assured failed to produce the death certificate of the life assured Saji.P. The Forum below accepted the case of the opposite parties to a certain extent and dismissed the complaint in OP.189/02. It is aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed by the complainant in OP.189/02. We heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondents/opposite parties The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on the finding of the Forum below that the life assured P.Saji committed the offence of impersonation and obtained a passport in the name of Vavakunju Hameed Kutty and that life assured Saji.P. and the aforesaid Vavakunju Hameed Kutty are one and the same person. He further pointed out the finding of the Forum below that the life assured died in an accident while he was employed in the name of Vavakunju Hameed kutty at Riyad in Saudi Arabia. It is the case of the appellant that once it is found that the life assured died in an accident it was incumbent upon the Forum below to allow the claim made in the complaint in OP.189/02. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties to a greater extent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and submitted that the claim put forward by the appellant/complainant in her capacity as the nominee of the life assured is legally un-sustainable. Thus, the respondents/opposite parties requested for dismissal of the present appeal. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the claim made by the appellant/complainant in her capacity as nominee of the life assured Saji.P. can be treated as legally sustainable? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in dis-allowing the Insurance claim put-forward by the appellant/complainant as the nominee of the life assured Saji.P.? 3. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties in denying the Insurance claim made by the complainant on the strength of Ext.P1 policy of Insurance? Points 1 to 3:- There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is the nominee of the life assured Saji.P. and that the respondent/opposite party LIC of India had issued a life Insurance policy in the name of Saji.P. as the life assured. Ext.P1 is copy of the aforesaid policy of Insurance issued by the opposite party Insurance Company in favour of the life assured Saji.P. It is to be noted that the appellant/complainant is none other than the wife of life assured Saji.P. There can be no doubt about that the appellant/complainant being the nominee of the life assured is entitled to get the Insurance policy amount, in the event of death of the life assured during the existence of P1 policy of Insurance. The important and crucial point to be considered in this case is as to whether the life assured Saji.P. died on 27.11.2000 as claimed by the appellant/complainant, or whether the appellant/complainant has succeeded in establishing the fact regarding the alleged death of her husband Saji.P. on 27.11.2000. The complainant as PW1 has deposed in support of the statements and allegations made in the complaint in OP.189/02. She categorically deposed that her husband Saji.P. went abroad and he was working at Riyad in Saudi Arabia by impersonation as Vavakunju Hameed kutty and that her husband fraudulently obtained the Passport in the name of Vavakunju Hameed kutty. It is also deposed that her husband Saji.P. died on 27.11.2000 while working at Riyad, Saudi Arabia and that he died in a road accident. The documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant would only establish the fact that one Vavakunju Hameed kutty died in a road accident which occurred at Riyad in Saudi Arabia and the dead body of the aforesaid Vavakunju Hameed Kutty was brought to India. All the documents would only show that the person by name Vavakunju Hameed kutty died in the road accident and his dead body was brought to India. It would also show that the aforesaid Vavakunju Hameed kutty had been holding an Indian Passport. Thus, in effect, there is no reliable and acceptable evidence on record to show that the life assured Saji.P., the husband of the complainant died at Riyad in a road accident which occurred on 27.11.2000. P1 policy of Insurance would stipulated that the nominee of the life assured can very well claim and receive the Insurance amount, in the event of death of the life assured. The oral testimony of PW2, Father Manuel B.Thomas and Ext.X1 and P2 certificate dated 10.2.2001 issued by PW2 would make it abundantly clear that the life assured Saji.P. died and his dead body was brought to the Malankara Catholic Church, Sooranadu North and the dead body was buried, after following the religious ceremonies and rituals. There is no reason or ground to doubt the testimony of PW2 and Ext.P2 certificate issued by him. PW2, the priest has also deposed about Ext.X1 copy of the Funeral Register issued by the Vicar St.Mary’s Malankara Catholic Church, Sooranad North. The original of Ext.X1 Funeral Register maintained by the church authority would make it clear that on 13.1.01 the dead body of Saji.P. was buried in the cemetery attached to the aforesaid church. PW2 has spoken about the original of X1 funeral register maintained by the church authority. There is also nothing on record to doubt the genuineness and correctness of X1 funeral register. It is also to be noted that PW2 has categorically deposed that he had previous acquaintance with deceased Saji.P. and that on the funeral day he identified the dead body as that of Saji.P. Thus, in all respects the evidence of PW2 and Et.P2 and X1 documents would make it abundantly clear that the life assured Saji.P. died and his dead body was buried on 13.1.2001 at the Cemetery attached of St.Mary Malankara Catholic Church, Sooranadu North. Thus, the complainant as the nominee of the life assured ( the wife of the life assured ) established the fact that the life assured Saji.P. is not alive. So, the Insurance claim made by the complainant is to be allowed. The respondents/Opposite parties have no case that PW2 has deposed false- hood wood or that P2 and X1 documents are forged documents. Thus, the complainant could establish the fact that the life assured Saji.P. was not alive on 13.1.01. If that be so, the insurance claim submitted by the complainant as nominee of life assured ought to have been allowed by the opposite party LIC of India. The Forum below dis-allowed the complaint in OP.189/02 on various grounds. The first ground stated by the Forum below is that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. It is the view of the forum below that the mother and son of the life assured are not arranged as parties to the complaint and so the complaint is defective. It is to be noted that the complainant is the nominee of the life assured. As per the policy of Insurance the nominee can collect the insurance amount in the capacity as the nominee. There is no case for the opposite parties that the complainant is not the nominee of the life assured. Thus, the complainant being the beneficiary under the policy of insurance can very well maintain the complaint in OP.189/02. So, the aforesaid view adopted by the Forum below cannot be up-held. The other reason stated by the forum below is that the power of attorney holder of the complainant who was authorized to bring the dead body of Vavakunju Hameed kutty from abroad is a necessary party and the complaint ought to have been preferred by him. The mere fact that the complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr.Babu cannot be taken as a ground to hold that he is the compete person to receive the insurance claim with respect to the policy of Insurance taken by the life assued Saji.P. Another aspect to be noted is that the power of attorney was executed by the complainant authorizing the aforesaid Babu to bring the dead body of one Vavakunju Hameed kutty from abroad and that power of attorney has nothing to do with the policy of insurance issued in the name of the life assured Saji.P. That the power of attorney holder has no authority to bring a claim to get the Insurance amount. It is also to be noted that by virtue of the power of attorney there was no authorization to get the insurance amount covered by P1 policy of Insurance. So, the aforesaid reason stated by the forum below is to be negatived. The forum below is of view that the deceased Saji.P. had obtained a passport fraudulently by impersonation as Vavakunju Hameed kutty. It is true, that obtaining a passport by exercising fraud or impersonation is a criminal offence. But the fact that the life assured committed any such offence cannot be taken as a ground to deny the policy amount due to the complainant as the nominee of the life assured. There is no sort of bar on hindrance in getting the insurance claim even if the life assured had committed any such offence of impersonation or obtaining a valuable document by exercising fraud. The complaint is not concerned with the offence committed by the life assured during his life time, as far as the policy of insurance is concerned. It is to be noted at this juncture that there is no specific bar or prohibition in P1 policy de-baring the nominee from claiming the insurance amount on the ground that the life assured committed any offence during his life time and during the existence of the policy of Insurance. There is also no condition stating that the insurer can repudiate the Insurance claim, in the event the life assured died while committing any offence. In the absence of any such condition or stipulation, it is not proper or fair on the part of the Insurance Company to deny the amount covered by P1 policy of insurance. The Forum below has not properly considered the material aspects to be considered in the matter of awarding the Insurance claim under P1 policy of Insurance. So, the forum below cannot be justified in dis-allowing the insurance claim under the aforesaid grounds stated in the impugned order dated.19.5.04 in OP.189/02. The appellant/complainant has also claimed double accident Insurance benefit on the ground that the life assured died in a road accident. We have also considered the allegations regarding the death of the life assured in a road accident at Riyad in Saudi Arabia. The complainant could not establish the fact that the life assured died in a road accident. The documentary evidence would show that one Vavakunju Hameed kutty died in a road accident at Riyad in Saudi Arabia. The acceptable evidence on record is to the effect that the life assured Saji.P. died and his dead body buried on 13.1.01 at the Cemetery of Malankara Catholic Church, Sooranadu. The cause of death or the place of death are not established clinchingly. We are of the view that the opposite party LIC of India is only liable to pay the insurance claim on the ground that the life assured is not alive on the date of submission of the Insurance claim by the complainant Sherly Saji. So, the claim made for double accident benefit under the policy of Insurance is dis-allowed. The opposite party/LIC of India was through out insisting for production of death certificate. But, P1 policy of Insurance would not show that there is any such stipulation regarding production of death certificate in order to allow the Insurance claim. It is true, that in the ordinary course, the insurer will insist for production of death certificate issued by the competent authority only because of the fact that the death certificate is a valid document to prove the death of the life assured. The mere fact that death certificate is a valuable document to prove the death of the life assured cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the death certificate is the only method to prove or establish the death of the life assured. In this case, unfortunately the complainant could not obtain the death certificate. The Complainant has also given acceptable reasons for her in-ability to get the death certificate of her husband Saji.P. The aforesaid reasons or grounds stated by the complainant for her in-ability to produce the death certificate is to be accepted. So, the opposite party/Insurance company cannot be justified in denying the insurance amount on the sole ground that the nominee of the life assured failed to produce the death certificate from the concerned authority. On the other hand, the complainant as the nominee of the life assured could establish the death of the life assured. So, the aforesaid attitude shown and the method adopted by the opposite party/Insurance company would tantamount to deficiency of service. There was some sort of deficiency of service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. So, we are of the strong view that the appellant/complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount of Rs.250000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (19.8.02) till the date of realization. Since, we have awarded interest on the Insurance amount; we are not inclined to grant separate compensation. The complainant is also entitled to get her cost in the proceedings. We fix the cost at Rs.1000/-. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated.19.5.04 passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP.189/02 is set-aside. Thereby, the respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.250000/- to the appellant/complainant as the nominee of the life assured. The aforesaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint (19.8.02) till the date of realization with a cost of Rs.1000/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
