Gayam Nagamani, W/o. Late Murali Krishna & 2 others all R/o. Mandalapadu Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sathupally Branch, Sathupalli Post, Khammam Dist & - Opp.Party(s)
A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate, Khammam.
17 May 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/65
Gayam Nagamani, W/o. Late Murali Krishna & 2 others all R/o. Mandalapadu Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam Gayam Ganesh, S/o. Late Murali Krishna Gayam Ravi, S/o. Late Murali Krishna
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sathupally Branch, Sathupalli Post, Khammam Dist & another The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 18th day of June, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.65/2009 Between: . 1) Gayam Nagamani, W/o Late Murali Krishna, Age:22years, Occu:Agriculture Coolie, R/o Mandalapu Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District. 2) Gayam Ganesh, S/o Late Murali Krishna, Age: 5years, Occu:Nil. 3) Gayam Ravi, S/o Late Murali Krishna, Age: 4years, Occu: Nil Complainant No.2 and 3 are being minors represented by their mother and Natural Guardian by name Gayam Nagamani, W/o Late Murali Krishna, Age:22 years, Occu:Agriculture Coolie, all are R/o. Mandalapadu Village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District. Complainants And 1) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Sathupalli Branch, Sathupalli Post, Khammam District. 2) The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Balasamudram, Hanumakonda, Warangal District 506 001. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri A.V. Ramana, Advocate for complainants, Sri A. Sarath Chander, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the wife of Late Murali Krishna and complainants No.2 & 3 are the sons. The deceased Murali Krishna had insured his life with the opposite party No.1 by taking a policy bearing No.687553226, for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The said Murali Krishna died on 09-04-2008 in Motor Accident. After the death of Murali Krishna the complainant No.1 approached opposite party for the settlement of the policy on which the opposite party No.1 had paid the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- only after receiving the original bond. The complainant No.1 requested the opposite party No.1 to pay the accidental benefits since the policy covers the same of which the opposite party No.1 did not settle, though the complainant No.1 visited the office of the opposite party No.1 many a times. The complainants are entitled to receive the Accident Benefits according to the policy and the opposite parties are trying to avoid the due payment of the complainants. On the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant had issued a legal notice on 15/03/2009, the same was served to the opposite parties. In spite of service of legal notice, neither amount is paid nor any reply is given. Hence the complaint. 2. Apart from the complaint, the complainants filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint. 3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their counter. In the counter they admitted that the death intimation was received and the life assured died on Road Accident. Since the death of life assured with in two years of the date of commencement of the policy, treating the claim as early, an investigation was caused into the bonafides of the claim. The claim under above policy was admitted and promptly settled for an amount of Rs.54,200/- vide Cheque No.249701, dated 27-06-2008. Thus opposite party No.1 had paid the assured sum of Rs.50,000/-, the Accidental Benefit Claim under the policy is held up/pending for want of the driving license of the deceased. As the same is essential to take a decision of the Accident Benefit Claim, since the complainants failed to produce the driving license of life assured, who died in a road accident while driving the Motorcycle, the opposite parties could not take any decision on the claim of Accident Benefit. Hence there is no deficiency of on the part of the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have been filed. 1) Renewal Premium Receipt, dated 31/12/2007 2) Copy of Death Certificate, dated 08/05/2008. 3) Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 15/06/2009 4) Postal Acknowledgements. 5) F.I.R. 6) Charge Sheet filed before the Judl. First Class Magistrate at Sathupalli. 5. Apart from the documents, on behalf of the complainants written arguments filed. 6. On behalf of the opposite parties, no documents filed. 7. Even after availing a number of adjournments, there was no representation on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 2. Hence the matter was treated as heard from the opposite parties. Perused the material filed there in, upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainants are entitled to the accident benefits? 2. To what relief? In this case the opposite parties have denied the payments to the complainants under Accident Benefits on the ground that the driving license of the deceased was not produced before the opposite parties for settling the Accident Benefits. As per the contents of Charge Sheet, the deceased met with an unfortunate accident wherein a Tractor gave dash to the motor cycle, which was being driven by the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and sustained head injury and died on the spot. The deceased is a third party to the crime vehicle. It is not that he gave dash to a Tractor but the Tractor it self gave dash to the motorcycle resulting into instantaneous death of the deceased. The death of deceased is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor by its driver. A case has been registered by the police against the Tractor driver U/Sec.304 IPC and charge sheet also filed and the deceased met with an unforeseen accident. Even if the deceased was having driving license at the time of accident, even then it is of no use. The demand of driving license is no way concerned to the opposite parties mere possessing driving license would not have prevented the accident in which he sustained head injury and collapsed on the spot. Therefore, we do not feel that the driving license would have come in any way to avoid the accident. Moreover, the opposite parties clearly admitted in their counter that the deceased died in motor accident. In support of their contention, the complainants filed F.I.R. and charge sheet, which clearly prove that the deceased died in the motor accident. Therefore it is not proper on the part of the opposite parties to deny Accident Benefits to the complainants to which they are entitled. 8. In view of above said reasons, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the Accident Benefits covered under the policy bearing No. 687553226 together with interest of 9% P.A from the date of filing complaint till the date of deposit. On such deposit the complainant No.1 is entitled to half of the amount and complainants No.2 & 3 being minors, the remaining amount be deposited under FDR equally till they attain the age of majority. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 18th day of June, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Nil Exhibits marked for opposite parties: Nil PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
