Date of filing: 30-06-2014
Date of Disposal:04.02.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Kumari Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.L., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday, the 04th day of February, 2015
C.C.No.80/2014
Between:
1. Biyyam Anasuyamma @ B.Anasuya,
W/o B.Sudhkar Reddy.
2. Biyyam Manasa D/o B.Sudhakar Reddy.
3. Biyyam Sashidhar Reddy S/o B.Sudhakar Reddy.
All are Residing at Goddumarri Village,
Yellanur Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Manger, State Bank of India,
Narpala,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. The United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
D.No.11/170-B, Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Harinath Reddy Advocate for the complainants and the 1st opposite party called absent and set exparty and Sri V.Krishna Sarma, Advocate for the 2nd opposite part and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards sum assured with interest @24% P.A. from 01.08.2011 to 01.07.2014 on the sum assured,Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainants herein are permanent residents of Goddumarri Village, Yellanur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. The 1st complainant is the wife of Late B.Sudhakar Reddy and the complainants 2 & 3 are their children. The 1st complainant’s husband B.Sudhakar Reddy is an accountholder in the 1st opposite party Bank and having a Kisan Credit Card. The 1st complainant’s husband B.Sudhakar Reddy was a member of 1st opposite party Bank under Kisan Credit Card Scheme account No.11672888001 which is covered under the 2nd opposite party policy bearing No.051004/47/08/43/00001536 covering from 27.01.2009 to 26.01.2012. As per the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the 2nd opposite party if the policyholder dies in any accident the family members of the policyholder are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Policy. Subsequently B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock on 01.08.2011 at about 3.30 P.M. and a case was registered with Yellanur P.S. as crime No.43/2011 under section 174 Cr.P.C. After the death of B.Sudhakar Reddy postmortem was conducted by the Duty Medical Officer, Tadipatri. As per the policy the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the sum assured i.e., Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as the policyholder B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock which is an accident. After the death of B.Sudhakar Reddy the 1st complainant approached the opposite party with a request to pay the sum assured under the policy. Though the opposite parties agreed to pay the sum assured to the complainants, the opposite parties went on postponing to pay the sum assured for the reasons best known to them. In this connection all the efforts made by the complainants proved futile. Subsequently to the surprise of the complainants the 2nd opposite party repudiated their claim on flimsy grounds on 13.07.2012. As the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainants, the complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming the sum assured under the policy i.e., Rs.50,000/- and interest on the sum assured from the date of the death of the 1st complainant’s husband and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony along with costs.
3. The 1st opposite party called absent and set exparte.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or no facts of the case. The 2nd opposite party submits that the allegation in the complaint that the deceased B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock on 01.08.2011 while attending to his agriculture field i.e., to water the land who is said to be a KCC accountholder under the account No. 11672888001 in the 1st opposite party Bank is not admitted and the complainants are put to strict proof of the manner of death etc., as alleged in complaint. As seen from the records the wife of the deceased gave a police complaint and basing on her complaint FIR in Crime No.43/2011 was registered on 01.08.2011 itself by the Yellanur P.S. under section 174 Cr.P.C. and a postmortem was conducted on02.08.2011 at Government Hospital, Tadipatri. As per the records the police also filed final report to the Mandal Executive Magistrate explaining the circumstances for the death of the deceased and requested him to drop further action. The 2nd opposite party submits that as seen from the records though the deceased died on 01.08.2011 the intimation of death of the deceased is received by the company only on 05.12.2011 through a letter by the 1st opposite party and there is delay four months from the date of death. As per the policy conditions the claim should be made immediately by informing to the company or within the maximum period of 14 days from the date of said occurrence of incident otherwise the intimation will be treated as a belated one and the company has no liability.
5. The allegation in the complaint that the complainants informed to the company immediately and that this 2nd opposite party also agreed to settle the claim and intentionally delaying the payment to the complainants is absolutely not correct. In fact the complainants never approached the insurance company at any point of time and the company did not agree to pay the amount as alleged in the complaint. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that as seen from public documents it is clearly mentioned that while the deceased connecting the motor wire hooks to the live line, the wire hook slipped and fell on the deceased and due to electric shock and he fell into the well and died and also sustained electric burns. Thus the investigation clearly reveals that the deceased died due to electric shock while the deceased was committing breach of law with criminal intent which is absolutely not maintainable under the policy and the said act of the deceased is a clear violation under exclusion No.(d) of policy exclusions.
6. The 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainants basing on the public documents vide their letter dt.13.07.2012 under valid reasons. Hence the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that there is abnormal delay in intimation and also did not sent all the records as required by the 2nd opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the claim against the 2nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed. Further the allegation that there is delay in settling the claim of the complainants and they are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- under various heads is absolutely not correct and the complainants are not entitled for the same or any portion thereof.
7. i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 & 2?
ii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainants have been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents.
9. Heard both sides.
10. The counsel for the complainant submitted that one B.Sudhakar Reddy was a Kishan Credit Card account holder and the account No.11672888001 in the 1st opposite party Bank and he has covered under Kishan Credit Card policy bearing No.051004/47/08/43/00001536 covering from 27.01.2009 to 26.01.2012 and a sum of Rs.45/- was collected from the B.Sudhakar Reddy. The counsel for the complainants submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the 2nd opposite party if the policyholder dies in any accident the family members are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Kishan Credit Card policy.
11. The counsel for the complainants submitted that B.Sudhakar Reddy subsequently died due to electric shock on 01.08.2011 at about 3.30 P.M. and a case was registered by Yellanur P.S. under crime No.43/2011 under section 174 Cr.P.C. Later a postmortem was conducted on the body of B.Sudhakar Reddy by the Duty Medical Officer, Tadipatri. The counsel for the complainants submitted that after the death of B.Sudhakar Reddy the complainants made a claim to the opposite parties requesting them to pay the sum assured. Though the opposite parties agreed to pay the sum assured to the complainants went on postponing the same on one pretext or other and in this connection all the efforts made by the complainants proved futile. The counsel for the complainants submitted an application to 2nd opposite party to pay the sum assured then the 2nd opposite party repudiated their claim on flimsy grounds vide their letter dt.13.07.2012.
12. The counsel for the complainants argued that as per the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the 2nd opposite party the complainants are entitled to receive the sum assured under the policy i.e., Rs.50,000/- as the policyholder B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock accidentally on 01.08.2011. But the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds and after repudiation of 2nd opposite party the complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming the sum assured under the policy along with interest from the date of death of the deceased and also claiming a sum of Rs.20,000- towards mental agony along with costs of the complaint from the opposite parties as there is deficiency of service on their part.
13. Counsel for 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the deceased B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock on 01.08.2011 while attending to agriculture work to water his land who is said to be covered and who is an account holder in the 1st opposite party Bank is not admitted and the complainants are put to strict proof of the manner of death as alleged in the complaint. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that as seen from the records the wife of the deceased gave a police complaint and basing on her complaint FIR in crime No.43/2011 was registered on 01.08.2011 itself by Yellanur P.S. under section 174 Cr.P.C. and a postmortem was conducted on 02.08.2011 at Government Hospital, Tadipatri. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that as per the records the police filed a final report to Mandal Executive Magistrate explaining the circumstances for the death of the deceased and requested him to drop further action.
14. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that though the deceased died on 01.08.2011 the death intimation was received by the company only on 05.12.2011 through a letter of 1st opposite party i.e., there is a delay of four months after the death of B.Sudhakar Reddy. As per the policy conditions the death intimation should be given immediately to 2nd opposite party or within a maximum period of 14 days from the date of occurrence of the incident otherwise the intimation will be treated as a belated one and the company is not liable to pay any compensation. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that as alleged in the complaint the complainants never approached the 2nd opposite party to pay the amount but as falsely alleged in the complaint that the 2nd opposite party has promised to settle the claim and intentionally delaying the payment is not correct.
15. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that as seen from the public documents it is clearly mentioned that while the deceased was connecting the motor wire hook to the live line the wire hook slipped and fell on B.Sudhakar Reddy and due to electric shock he fell in to the well and died by sustaining electric burns. Thus the investigation clearly shows that the deceased died due to electric shock while B.Sudhakar Reddy was committing breach of law with criminal intent which is absolutely not covered under the policy and it is a clear violation under the exclusion No.(d). The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim vide their letter dt.13.07.2012 under valid reasons basing on the public documents. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that there was abnormal delay in intimating the occurrence of the incident and also did not submit the necessary records as required by the 2nd opposite party. Hence the 2nd opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants as above.
16. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents the fact is that B.Sudhakar Reddy is a Kishan Credit Card account holder in the 1st opposite party Bank and is a member of policy No.051004/47/08/43/00001536 issued by the 2nd opposite party which is valid from 27.01.2009 to 26.01.2012. As seen from Ex.A4 document it is nowhere mentioned in the complaint or FIR that B.Sudhakar Reddy died while connecting motor wires to live wires and the said wires slipped and fell on B.Sudhakar Reddy and in turn B.Sudhakar Reddy due to electric shock fell in to the well and died as argued by the 2nd opposite party. The fact is that while B.Sudhakar Reddy was trying to switch on the motor got an electric shock accidentally and fell into the well and died on the spot by sustaining electric burns as per FIR and complaint which is marked as Ex.A4. And even as per the inquest report which is marked as Ex.A6 also B.Sudhakar Reddy died due to electric shock accidentally while connecting motor wires. The argument of the 2nd opposite party is that as per Ex.B3 B.Sudhakar Reddy while connecting motor wire hooks to the live line the wire hook slipped and fell on B.Sudhakar Reddy due to which B.Sudhakar Reddy got a shock and fell in to the well and died with electric burns cannot be considered because Ex.B3 document is the letter addressed to Mandal Executive Magistrate requesting to drop further action in the death of deceased B.Sudhakar Reddy and to treat the same as accidental death due to electric shock. Further in the same letter they have also mentioned that the case as accidental death due to electric shock and there is no foul play in the accident which shows that the death of B.Sudhakar Reddy was only an accidental death due to electric shock.
17. Further in Ex.B3 document which is the repudiation letter clearly shows the reasons for repudiation i.e., for (1) Non submission of necessary documents and violation of exclusion clause No.D which are not proved by the 2nd opposite party as stated supra. With this observation we are of the view that the 1st complainant’s husband died only due to electric shock accidentally. Hence the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the sum assured under the policy i.e., Rs.50,000/- with interest from the date of complaint till the date of realization. Further we are of the view that the 2nd opposite party has caused mental agony to the complainants by repudiating the claim for which the 2nd opposite party is also liable. And a sum of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards mental agony.
18.POINT NO.2:- In the result the complaint is partly allowed by directing the 2nd opposite party to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the sum assured under the policy along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony within one month from the date of this order. However the complaint against the 1st opposite party is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 4th day of February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
PW1: Biyyam Anasuyamm @B.Anasuya 1st complainant
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY No. 2
RW1: K.Nataraj, Assistant Manager.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
ExA1 Original Pass Book issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the deceased
B.Sudhakar Reddy.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy No.051004/47/08/43/00001536 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3 Letter dt.13.07.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st complainant
Ex.A4 Attested copy of FIR in crime No.43/22011 dt.01.08.2011 of Yellnaur P.S.
Ex.A5 Attested copy of Postmortem certificate relating to the deceased
B.Sudhakar Reddy.
Ex.A6 Attested copy of Inquest report relating to the deceased B.Sudhakar Reddy.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2
Ex.B1 Attested copy of policy with conditions
Ex.B2 Repudiation letter dt.13.07.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party
to 1st opposite party
ExB3 Attested copy of Final Report submitted by Inspector of Police Yellanur.
Ex.B4 Office copy of letter dt.24.02.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party
to 1st opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
