Karnataka

Bidar

CC/1/2016

Jayabai w/o Late Pundaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager DCC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mulchand H.Advocate

29 Jul 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 01/2016

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 21/01/2016

 

                                                                                              Date of disposal : 29/07/2017

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                       (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:      Jaya Bai W/o Late Pundaji,                           

                                    Age: Major,  Occ: Agriculture,

                                       R/o Village Dongargaon,

                                     Tq: Aurad-B, Dist: Bidar.

                                                          

              

 

 

                                    (By Shri. Mulchand.H, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-      1.    The Manager DCC Bank,

                                           Br.Aurad-B.

                                         

                                    2.    The United India Insurance Company Ltd,

                                           Br.Near Ambedkar Circle Bidar.

 

 

                                      

 

 

 

                                ( O.P.No.1.By Shri. Pnadurang Rao Gadgiker,        
                                  O.P.No2 M.A. Khan, Advocate)

                                                 

 

 

                                               

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

1.         The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P., by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986.

 

2.      The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:

            The complainant is an agriculturist.  The husband of complainant namely Pundaji S/o Jeevan, was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.24/6, measuring/1-Acre 01-guntas situated at village Dongargaon.  He was a KCC holder of PKPS Bank ltd., of Dongargaon, Tq.Aurad having KCC A/c No.10366, for which the O.P.1 issued passbook. The O.P.1 debited the premium amount for the insurance policy from the account of the deceased husband of complainant and paid it to O.P.2, who issued policy for an amount of Rs.50,000/- to cover of accidental death.  On16.08.2015, the husband of complainant while working in the above said field, suffered from snake bite, and died.  The complainant being the nominee of the policy, intimated the O.Ps. about the death of her husband and submitted the claim, but the complainant has not received any reply from theO.P.1. the O.P.2 had issued letter to O.P.1 on 01.09.2015 stating that “we have not received the necessary documents i.e., FIR, Police panchanama, P.M. report etc., and rejected the application as no claim.  The O.Ps. have failed to settle the claim of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, the compliant for compensation, interest, etc.

 

3.                The opponents entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, the O.P.1 and 2 have filed their respective versions.  O.P.1 contended in its version that, the O.P.1 has no such information as regards the alleged death of Pundaji S/o Jeevan due to snake bite while working in the land Sy.No.24/6 on the alleged date 16.08.2014 at about 11.15 am., and the immediate funeral at about 12 hours of the day and funeral of deceased.  The O.P.1 further contended that, it has no liability towards the alleged accident, but the entire liability is on the O.P.2 by whom the KCC card is insured.  To settle the claim of the policy, proof of the accident is very much necessary and the same is the look out of the O.P2.  As per the complainant averments, the O.P.2 has repudiated the claim for want of FIR and police panchanama etc.  As per the scheme, it is the PKPS Karkyal who has to debit a sum of Rs.5/- and this O.P.1 Rs.10/-and pay the aggregate sum of Rs.15/- towards the premium to the O.P.2 to, cover life of the deceased for the accidental death, which duty has been duly performed by them.  O.P.1 is no way concerned for settlement of the claim of complainant. It is only in between theO.P.2 and the complainant as to how she can satisfy theO.P.2 as regard to the veracity of the accidental death so as to facilitate the O.P.2 to settle the claim.  The O.P.1 and PKPS Karkyal have performed all their requisite part and rendered the services to the fag end admittedly in making payment o f the entire premium with their due contribution and the policy is current and now, there remains nothing to be paid.  As such, there is no service remains to be rendered by the O.P.1 and PKPS Karkayal in settling the claim. Hence, the complaint against this O.P.1 is not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed in liminie.  O.P.1   is not necessary party to the present proceedings.  There is no any paid service by the O.P.1 to the complaint as defined in Sec.2(1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, O.P.1 prays to dismiss the compliant with costs.

 

4.               O.P.2 contended that, the complaint is premature and without any cause of action, since the complainant has not submitted any claim nor any such claim has so far been received nor any claim repudiated.  The O.P.2 denies the contention of complainant that on 16.08.2014,  complainants’ husband while working in the land Sy.No.24/6 suffered from snake bite and died. Complainant was unaware of process of intimation, panchnama.  The complainant has not submitted any such claim under the policy nor has produced any medical record of such other records to show that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite.  The O.P.2 further contended that, the husband of complainant being aged person died natural death.  His death is not at all due to snake bite as alleged.  It is only the doctor who is competent to speak about the cause of death that too after subjecting the dead body for post-morterm examination.  In this case, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence, which is admissible to prove that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite. In the absence of such documentary evidence from the competent doctor, it cannot be blindly accepted that the death of the deceased was due to snake bite.  The complainant as not given intimation in writing to the O.P.2 within a period of 15days from the date of alleged incident, and any such claim of complainant is not pending.  Simply because the deceased was holder of KCC account, would not entitle the complainant to claim the benefit under the policy, unless it is proved to the fullest satisfaction of this Hon’ble forum that the death was due to snake bite as alleged.  O.P.2 issued the policy fro Rs.50,000/- to KCC holder in case of death due to accident or snake bite.  Where the death is natural, and it is not on account of any accident or snake bite, the O.P.2 does not become liable for payment of any assured sum to the complainant.  The O.P.2 not disputed that, the complainant after the incident approached O.P.1 and submitted her claim along with death certificate, KCC Pass book and panchanama.  In this regard, the O.P.1 intimated the O.P.2 for the first time on 18.12.2014 about the death of KCC Holder, which is almost more than 03 months after the incident, which is in violation of condition of the policy, which stipulates that, any such incident of death of KCC holder has to be reported to the O.P.2 within 15 days from the date of accident or death, otherwise the O.P.2 company will not entertain the claim.  Despite this, the O.P.2 with intention to settle the claim, wrote letters to O.P.1 bank on 10.12.2014 requesting to furnish the relevant document such as claim form, FIR copy, Police panchanama, Mahazar Panchanama, P.M. Report, death certificate, Pahani Patrika Vanshavali, KCC card, Voter card, Ration card, Legal heir cum succession certificate, chemical analysis certificate from attending doctor and lead bank recommendation, since these documents are essential for settlement of the claim.  But unfortunately so far the O.P.1 bank has not furnished.  O.P.2 repeatedly wrote similar letters on 31.03.2015 and 01.09.2015, but there is no response from the O.P.1 bank, hence it is taken as No claim.  It is submitted by O.P.2 that, in order to hold that the death of a person was due to snake bite, there must be medical evidence such as post mortem examination report and police panchanama, but in this case there is no such medical report nor the incident of death is reported to the police so as to enable the police to conduct panachanama and ascertain the cause of death.  The panchanama conducted by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat is totally inadmissible, since he is not competent to say about the cause of death.  The death of the deceased was not due to snake bite, but it was natural and therefore, it is not covered under the said policy.  The policy is issued with certain conditions and unless and until the conditions contained in the policy are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the O.P. company, no claim made under the policy is legally tenable.  The complainant has not submitted the claim within stipulated time. The policy is issued to provide monetary help to the kithand kin of agriculturist, who died in any accident or snake bite and it should not be allowed to be misused by anybody even in case of natural death, since it would defeat the purpose of the government.  The claim of complainant for sum assured etc., is totally illegal.  Hence, the O.P.2 prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

 

 

 

5.             The complainant has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also the complainant has filed evidence affidavit justifying her side.  On the other hand, the O.P. has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, and filed evidence affidavit justifying his side.  Both the complainant and O.P. filed their written arguments respectively.

 

6.            Considering the contention of the complainant, the following points arise for our considerations.

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that  there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
2. What order?

 

 

 

7.           Our answers to the points detailed are as follows:-

 

1. In the Negative.
2.  As per final orders owing to the following:-

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

8. Point No.1:-   In the case in hand, the complainant claims that, her husband (late) was K.C.C. A/c holders vide A/c No.10366 with the O.P.No.1 bank.  The premium was paid and a policy in sum assured of Rs.50,000/- was issued covering the accidental death of the A/c holder.  The policy holder died due to snake bite on 16.08.2015 and the fact of death was intimated to both O.P.s, consequent upon which the O.P.No.2, had Called upon the O.P.No.1 (Bank) to furnish documents Concerning death of the farmer vide Ex.P.3 date: 01.09.2015.   The complainant further avers in Para-4 that, a Panchanama was prepared by Gram Secretary of B Koutha (village), Aurad-b (Tq), Bidar (dist) after the death (Ex.P.2) and thereafter the body was creameted without any information to the jurisdictional Police or any post-mortem was ever conducted on the dead body.  As per the complainant, she has submitted the claim form, along with the aforesaid Panchanama, death certificate and K.C.C. pass book with the O.P.No.1.

 

9.             Both O.P.s more or less admit the corollary of events, but the O.P.No.2 claims that, the K.C.C. A/c holder had died due to old age and the same being natural death, the Insurance company is not liable to satisfy the claim.  An elaborate list of required documents was sent by the Insurer. (O.P.No.2) to the Bank (O.P.No.1) and those documents not being submitted, the insurer has closed the case as no claim. 

 

10.         The Insurance company acting within the frame work of law, we find no fault attributed to them.  The citation quoted by the complainants’ side i.e., (2000) CPJ Page No.113- Branch Manager L.I.C. V/s Rajkumar Mishra is on a different fooling and cannot have any application in the present case.

 

11.          Therefore we hold that, there has been no deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.s and answering point No.1 in the negative, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1. The complaint is dismissed as not due.
2. There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of July-2017 )

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                          

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Copy of death certificate.
2. Ex.P.2- Pnchanama Conducted by Secretary, G.P.B. Kautha Tq:         
                 Aurad (B), date: Bidar.
3. Ex.P.3- Original letter of O.P.No.2 Insurance Company to O.P. No.   

             Bank date: 01.09.2015.

4. Ex.P.4- Copy of first page of Pass book.
5. Ex.P.5- Copy of Voter I.D. Card.
6. Ex.P.6- R.T.C. of Sy.No.24, Dongar gao (village).

 

 Document produced by the Opponent.

1. Ex.R.1-  Original letter of O.P.No.2 Insurance company to 

               O.P.No.1 Bank date: 10.12.2014.

      2.   Ex.R.2-  Another original letter of Insurance Company date:

                         31.03.2015.

      3.   Ex.R.3- Rebuttal letter of Insurance company date: 01.09.2015
                         (Replica of P3).

      4.   Ex.R.4- Policy Certificate.

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.