This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 7-11-2008 in the presence of Sri.V.Narendra Swaroop, Advocate for Complainant, and opposite party No-1 appeared in person, and of Sri. V.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the opposite party No-2 ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced Social Security-Group Insurance Policy bearing No.431300/205/47/2004 for washer men for the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental deaths, and Rs.25,000/- in case of serious injuries, which was taken from Oriental Insurance Company. The husband of the complainant was a member of Adarsha Rajaka Co-operative society, Aswapuram and the opposite party No-1 has called the applications under the said policy, for which the husband of the complainant submitted his application for obtaining the said policy. On 28-3-2004 the husband of the complainant met with an accident and died near Gollagudem, while returning to his house after completion of his labour works and the panchanama and post mortem were conducted. After the death of husband of the complainant, the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party No-1 for claiming the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- along with all documents and the opposite party No-1 sent the claim form to the complainant and the complainant resubmitted the same to the opposite party No-1 and the same was forwarded by the opposite party No-1 to the opposite party No-2 but there is no response from the opposite parties as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the husband of the complainant and costs.
2. Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed Xerox copies of (i) Abstract of Government of A.P., G.O.M.S.No.47 dated 31-12-2003 (ii)Brochure, Guide lines of washer men Group Insurance Policy (iii)Donation receipt for Rs.50/- issued by Adarsha Rajaka Co-operative Society, Aswapuram dated 10-2-2003 (iv)Application form of Group Insurance Policy (v)Letter, addressed by opposite party No-1(vi) Death certificate, dated 3-4-2004 (vii) FIR, dated 25-3-2004 (viii)Panchanama report (ix) PME Report, dated 29-3-2004 (x)Income certificate (xi)Household supply card (xii)Legal notice, dated 27-12-2004.
3. After receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed counters by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
4. The opposite party No-1 appeared in person and as per the counter they admitted that they forwarded the application of the husband of the complainant to concerned authorities within the time as prescribed. The opposite party No-1 also contended that the complainant has not intimated the death information of her husband within 5 days or at least 15 days after the death, and after furnishing the proposal for claim by the complainant, the opposite party No-1 sent the claim form to the complainant on 20-9-2004 and after resubmission of claim form the opposite party No-1 forwarded the same to the opposite party No-2 along with all documents. The opposite party No-1 further stated that their liability is only to forwarding the claim form to the opposite party No-2 as such there is no liability on the part of them in providing the services to the complainant as prayed and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. The opposite party No-2 filed counter and admitted that they received claim form on 15-12-2004 but the same was returned to the opposite party No-1 on 28-3-2005 for want of due attestation of opposite party No-1. In spite of resubmitting the same as early either the complainant or the opposite party No-1 did not furnish the claim form after completion of more than 2 ½ years as such there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The opposite party No-2 filed additional counter and contended that the husband of the complainant was not at all washer man and he was not having membership in Rajaka Co-operative Society, Aswapuram and more over he was collie by profession and his earnings was at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and also stated that the above said policy was incorporated by the opposite party No-2 for the people, who are below poverty line i.e., the income is less than Rs.11,000/- p.a. and as per this policy every member will be given insurance policy individually, further the opposite party No-2 made a contention that the complainant failed to file policy bond and aslo contended that the complaint is barred by limitation as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. The opposite party No-2 filed written arguments with almost all the same contentions as mentioned in its counter. Along with a petition the opposite party No-2 filed Xerox copies of (i) Docket order of L.S.A, Khammam in L.S.A.C.No.129/2005(ii)True copy of application filed by the complainant before chairman, P.L.A., Khammam.(iii) True copy of claim petition filed before the court of M.A.C.T.,Khammam (iv)Brochure of the policy .
7. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
8. As seen from the complaint it is the contention of the complainant that the husband of the complainant submitted his application for obtaining the policy as per the call given by the opposite party No-1, but the complainant did not mention whether any policy was issued in his name or his name was included in the social security group policy for washer man, simply filed application form submitted for obtaining the said policy. In the absence of any such information regarding the issuance of policy in the name of husband of the complainant, this Forum cannot fasten any liability on the opposite parties. More over the complainant, who approached the Legal Services Authority at the first instance, did not choose to file the complaint immediately after disposal of case before the L.S.A and filed this complaint after the period of limitation and this complaint was filed after 3 ½ years from the date of death of the husband of the complainant and nearly 1 ½ year after disposal of her case in L.S.A. i.e., beyond limitation as prescribed in section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and more over the complainant did not mention any sufficient cause and cogent reasons for filing complaint with such abnormal delay, and did not file any petition for condoning such delay and as such this Forum held that the complaint is barred by limitation and as such the same is liable for dismissal.
9. In the result, the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 21st day of November, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
