BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

                Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Tuesday, the 21^st day of May, 2013

CC. No. 44 of 2012

Between:

1. B. Narsaiah S/o Late Ramaiah,

Aged about 70 years, Occ: Nil,

R/o Reddypally village.(Died).

2. B. Kistaiah S/o Narsaiah,

Aged about: 38 years, Occ: Labour,

3. B. Shankaraiah S/o Narsaiah,

Aged about: 28 years, Occ: Labour,

4. Smt. Yadamma W/o Durganna,

Aged about: 45 years, Occ: Nil,

All R/o Kalivemula (v) Sangareddy Mandal,

District Medak.                                                              ……Complainants                     

                   And

1. The Divisional Manager,

L.I.C. of India,

Division Office, Geevan Prakash

Saifabad, Opp: Secretarioate,

2.  The L.I.C. of India, through Branch

Manager, Branch Office,

Sangareddy, District Medak.

              ……Opposite parties

This case came up for final hearing before us on 10.05.2013 in the presence of Sri L. Sangram, Advocate for complainants and P. Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and heard the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Se Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)

                   The complainants are legal heirs of the deceased Smt. B. Laxmamma. The deceased Smt. B. Laxmamma was an aanganwadi worker in the education department and working in a primary school at Kalivemula village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The deceased was a policy holder with LIC. On her death, the complainants submitted claim for payment of policy amounts with all benefits according to the terms and conditions there in. The opposite parties did not settle the claim but raised objection which are unjustified and unreasonable. There has been inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties is not settling the claim. Therefore the legal heirs have approached this Forum by way of the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming the policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.09.2010 till date of realization and also award a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

2.                The opposite parties filed their counter and resisted the claim on the grounds that when an aanganwadi worker dies, as per the tie up between the central government and opposite parties, the policy limit is fixed for Rs. 30,000/- under the Jana Sri Bheema Yojana. In the present case the legal heirs are claiming Rs. 1,50,000/- which is untenable. They further contend that the deceased was working under the CDPO and MDO/HM, but the complainants have not made them party to the present complaint. Neither have they filed proof of work certificate of the deceased. In the present case four (4) persons are claiming the amount, where as only complainant No. 1, is the legal heir as per the ration card and they have not furnished the legal heir certificate. Also the exact age of the deceased is not known as the documents – (Ration card and voter card) are contrary. If she has crossed 65 years at the time of her death, the complainants are not entitled to any benefits.

                   They have been asking for the required proof of age of the deceased, which has not been submitted. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part. They can only process the claim when authentic age proof of the deceased is duly submitted. Therefore they pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.                Complainant No. 2 filed his evidence affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the other complainants. The complainants have relied on Exs. A1 to A4 in support of their claim.

                   The Manager of the opposite party No. 1, has filed his affidavit. Exs. B1 to B5 are marked in defence.

                   During the pendency of the case, complainant No.1 died. His legal heirs are already on record i.e. complainant Nos. 2 to 4. No written arguments have been filed by the parties to the case. Heard both the counsel on record.

4.                Now the point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not granting the reliefs in favour of the complainants as prayed for?

5.                Admittedly late B. Laxmamma was insured by opposite party No. 2 for her life under Jana Sri Bheema Yojana as on aanganwadi worker at Kalivemula Village. When this being the fact the opposite parties cannot turn around and allege that no proof has been filed by the complainants, to establish that the deceased B. Laxmamma was an aanganwadi worker. In other words, unless she was such a worker, the opposite parties would not have covered her life risk under the above said scheme. Even otherwise the document, Ex. A1 clearly shows that she was an aanganwadi worker at the time of her death.

                   No doubt the opposite parties have raised an objection in the counter that there is no proof with regard to legal heir ship of the complainants. But the certificate vide Ex.A4, issued by the Tahsildar, Sangareddy Mandal; amply proves that the complainants No. 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased B. Laxmamma. When this being the fact, merely because the sole name of complainant No. 1 appearing in the ration card – Ex. B3, becomes of no consequence. Even otherwise, he is no more now.

 Late B. Laxmamma died on 23.09.2010 as evident from the document, Ex. A1. Ex.B4 is a copy of Ex. A1. As per Jana Sri Bheema Yojana, an aganwadi worker’s legal heirs are entitled to Rs. 30,000/- if he is between the age group of 18-59 years, at the time of his death. This is stated in the terms and conditions of the scheme vide Ex. B1.

                   The house hold card (Ration Card), Ex. B3 – shows the age of the deceased B. Laxmamma as 45 years as on 10.07.2006. She died on 23.09.2010. If these dates are taken into consideration, her age comes to about 49 years at the time of her death. Even the document – Ex. A1 shows her age as 58 years at the time of her death. Thus, either way she was below 59 years, when she died. This aspect squarely covers the eligibility factor given under the scheme, vide Ex. B1. In this view of the matter, the election ID card, Ex.B2 becomes insignificant with regard to her age. In this document her age is given as 50 years as on 01.01.1995; that is to say that she was about 65 years at the time of her death. It is common knowledge that the election ID cards are prepared, generally, on mere oral enquiry with the villagers and not based on any authenticated record. It seems the deceased was an illiterate lady. Therefore in the given circumstance, in our opinion, no overmuch importance need be attached to the election ID card, Ex.B2 more particularly in the light of her age noted in Ex. A1 and B3, stated above.

                   For these reasons, there is no hesitation to hold that the deceased was less than 59 years at the time of her death and thereby making the complainants eligible to maintain their claim. Despite these facts the opposite parties did not settle the same, even after issuing of the legal notice (Ex.A3) but instead sought for information vide Exs.A2 and B5 – letters on untenable grounds forcing the complainants to approach this Forum to seek redressal. However it is to be noted that the claim of the complainants for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, against the insured amount of Rs. 30,000/- is definitely unjustified.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the complainants have established deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The point is thus answered in favour of the complainants.

7.                In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased B. Laxmamma till the date of realization with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance: one month.

Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the    21^st day of May, 2013.

          Sd/-                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER     LADY MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                              WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

         Sd/-                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

      MALE MEMBER                     LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

Copy to:

1. The complainant
2. The opposite parties
3. Spare copy.