BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 23/11.
THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Iranna S/o. Shivaram Navadgekar, Age: 58
years, Occ: NEKRTC Driver R/o. Dharm Prakash Galli, Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar- 585 327.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of
India, Mukund Nagar, Station Road, Bijapur.
2. The Manager, (claims) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Post Box No. 43, ‘Jeevan Prakash’ Station Road Raichur- 594 101.
3. The Block Education Officer, Manvi, Dist:
Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct them to pay all the benefits and
due amount under LIC policy with compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
Date of institution :- 22-03-11.
Notice served :- 21-04-11.
Date of disposal :- 19-09-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. G.R. Kulkarni, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 represented by Sri. Basavaraj Sakri, Advocate.
Opposite No-3 represented by Sri. M.Nagaraj, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Iranna against Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC and opposite No-3 BEO Manvi, U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct them to pay all the benefits and due amount under LIC policy with compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, his son Revannanath was working as a school teacher in Government Higher Primary School, Malkapur, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur. He subscribed Jeevan Anand Policy from opposite with commencement of the risk from 23-10-07. The mode of payment of premium is by deducting it in monthly salary.
Revannanath died on 23-01-08 in Kavital of Manvi Tq. After the death of Revannanath complainant being the father of deceased Revannanath filed claim petition along with necessary records by surrendering the LIC policy. His claim was repudiated on the ground that, the policy became in lapsed condition for non payment of premiums. It is the duty of opposite No-3 to deduct the premiums in the monthly salary, but it was not done. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 flatly refused to pay benefits under the policy, even though he issued legal notices to them, as such he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it.
3. Opposite Nos- 1 & 2 LIC filed written version, by denying allegations made against Insurance Company by the complainant. It is contended that, premiums were paid only for the months of Ocotober-2007 and November-2007. Later on no premiums paid either by the deceased Revannanath or by opposite No-3, hence the policy became lapsed condition as per the terms and conditions of the policy it was intimated to the complainant, no deficiency in service on its part, accordingly, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. Opposite No-3 BEO, Manvi contended in his written version that deceased Revannanath was newly appointed as Assistant Teacher, he was posted to Primary High School, Malkapur, his records were under sanction and ratification, fitness certificate was under process he died on 23-01-08. The death information was not informed to him, opposite Nos- 1 & 2 Insurance Company also not requested him to deduct of the amount payable to Revannanath, there is no deficiency in service on his part, accordingly he prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the present complainant is a consumer under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and whether he proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 to 3?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
7. The Insurance Policy of deceased Revannanath is produced by the complainant which is marked as Ex.P-1. Similarly opposite Nos. 1 & 2 also produced the same. After going through the LIC policy of Revannanath, it reveals that, one Meghanath is a nominee under the policy as proposed by deceased Revannanath. The present complainant Iranna being the father of deceased is not a nominee under the said policy.
8. On perusal of the facts pleaded by the complainant in Para-5 and other Paras, it is very much clear that, complainant Iranna claiming the benefits under the policy as a father of Revannanath even though he is not a nominee under the policy Ex.P-1. The mother of deceased is not a party to this complaint. Under the said circumstances, we have to think over as to how the present complainant Iranna is entitled to claim the benefits under the said policy of his son Revannanath. Admittedly the complainant Iranna is not a nominee under the policy, one Meghanath is shown as a nominee of the said policy. The said Meghanath is not a party to this complaint. Keeping in view of these facts, we have to see the legal status of the complainant to see whether he is competent person to claim the benefits under the policy.
9. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is a rule of succession in case of death of a person. Section 9 of the said Act says, order of succession among the heirs in schedule of the Act. Admittedly father of deceased is not coming under clause-1 heir in the schedule to succeed the property of deceased son. Section 10 says about distribution of the property among the heirs in clause-1 of the schedule. Keeping in view of the fixed position of law for to succeed the property of deceased son, we have not convinced as to how this complaint Iranna filed this complaint by not pleading anything about the mother of deceased or with regard to nominee of the said policy. In the said circumstances, we are of the clear view that, the present complainant is not a consumer under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. Therefore, he cannot raise consumer dispute with regard to the present policy of deceased son in the absence of nominee under the policy or in the absence of succession certificate for entitlement of him to get the property of deceased son. Hence we have not discussed other contentions raised by complainant and opposites with regard to necessity issuance or non issuance of notice by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for non payment of premiums and other aspects. The present complainant is not maintainable alleging any one of the opposite for the reasons stated above and complaint is not entitled for any of the reliefs, accordingly we answered Point Nos-1 & 2 in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
10. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-09-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
