DISTRICT FORUM :: KADPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., MEMBER
Thursday, 7th July 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 22 / 2011
Gadikota Venkata Reddy, S/o G. Venkata Subba Reddy,
Resident of Putlampalli Village, Kamalapuram Mandal,
Kadapa district. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa.
2) Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its
Manager, Kamalapuram Branch, Kamalapuram Mandal,
Kadapa District. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 01-7-2011 in the presence of Sri G.M.B. Muralikrishna, Advocate, for complainant and Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for R1 and Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant wife is the customer of R2 bank and she had S.B. Account bearing No. 16022/2006041 which is a Kisan Credit Card account with insurance policy of her life bearing policy No. 050900/42/09/05/00000005. The account was opened on 19-9-2005 and she had obtained a crop loan in the year 2006 under Pragathi Kissan Credit card scheme with P.K.C.C account No. 413/2006 and the loan was sanctioned at Rs. 35,000/- on 28-11-2006 and also she obtained insurance policy with R1, which is under the name and style of Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme through R2 and she was paying yearly premiums regularly through R2.
3. R1 provided a Personal Accident insurance policy to the wife of the complainant G. Lakshmi Devi and provided an insurance coverage through R2 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with policy No. 050900/42/09/05/00000005 and the R2 was making payments towards through S.B. account of the said G. Lakshmi Devi regularly. The petitioner’s wife was working in her fields on 8-12-2009 and she died due to snake bite. The petitioner performed funerals to her wife on 9-12-2009 and he was not given any complaint to the police about the incident as he has no knowledge about the same and also due to lack of education.
4. The wife of the petitioner also obtained life insurance policy with Bajaj Allianz Life insurance Co. Ltd., vide policy No. 41494162 and also she obtained another personal accident policy, in a New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide policy No. 611200/47/10/17/0000010, during her life time and after her death, the petitioner herein made a representations to the concerned insurance companies and the insurance company paid the policy amount to the complainant. The complainant made representation to R1, disclosing the facts of the case and also settlement of other insurance company policies. Even, though all the details submitted by the petitioner herein with their written requisition to R2, but the R1 have repudiated the claim of the petitioner and send repudiation letter dt. 13-8-2010 stating that the petitioner herein not submitted the proof of the accidental death certificates such as FIR, Inquest report, post mortem report, Forensic science lab report and final report in the absence of all the above documents, the death is not within purview of the covering savings bank account holders of the covering account S.B. Account holders and hence, the claim is treated as no claim.
5. The petitioner submits that due to lack of education, knowledge and also legal proceedings the matter was not reported to the police authorities, but the matter was published in the daily news papers, dt. 10-12-2009. hence, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay insurance policy amount as well as other claims to the petitioner herein. The complainant prays to direct the Respondents to pay Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of policy till the date of realization, 2) to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for rendering deficiency of service, 3) to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for mental agony and suffering and to grant Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
6. Counter filed by R1, as per complaint on 8-12-2009 evening when deceased was cutting grass in the filed, a snake came out from grass and bitten the said deceased G. lakshmi Devi on her right leg and died while on the way to Hospital, Badvel are all false. The complainant has to prove the facts through FIR, Post mortem certificate, forensic laboratory report. The deceased has not died due to snake bite. The Respondents asked to submit FIR, Post mortem report, death certificate and family members certificate and sarpanch letter. The death certificate does not show the cause of death. The family members certificate clearly shows the cause of death due to ill - health. So the deceased died due to ill health. But the complainant has not filed family member’s certificate. The Respondents herein enclosed the family member’s certificate.
7. The R1 submits that either deceased or Respondents has not paid any premium to cover the risk of the deceased by the date of death of the deceased Lakshmi Devi. There is no policy in force by the date of the accident, as such R1 is not liable to pay compensation. R2 debited premium on 13-1-2010 i.e. after death of the deceased. The premium paid for 2007 – 2008 were expired by the date of accident. The complainant admitting that R2 has not deducted premium amount from deceased S.B. Account and sent to R2 in the year 2009. it is the duty of the complainant to pay premium in time to R1.
8. The complainant created false documents for the purpose of compensation. The news paper news has no authentication and not reliable. It shows complainant realties informed to them as the deceased died due to died snake bite. The sarpanch is not eye witness. The Respondents submitting that the deceased obtained life insurance policies in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., is different they are life insurance coverage. The other investigation reports are not binding on this Respondent to decide the facts. This Respondent investigation report disclosed that the deceased G. Lakshmi Devi died due to ill health and not snake bite.
9. This Respondent submits that the policy No. 05090042/09/05/00000005 is not relates to the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The complainant wrongly represented the claim and the same is not maintainable. This Respondents submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent. The deficiency of service on the part of the complainant itself as he has not submitted relevant documents, and this Respondent repudiated the claim is just and proper. This complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. The R1 filed additional counter stating that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant, as the complainant has not submitted relevant documents to prove the fact of the death of the deceased due to snake bite.
11. Counter filed by R2. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the facts and allegations mentioned in the complaint. The R2 takes a strong preliminary objection on the point of mis-furnishing of the facts relating to the claim of the complainant for a direction to the Respondents that they should pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- jointly and severally due to the reason that there is a deficiency in service on their part. The pleadings as averred in the complaint doesn’t pertain to the present case, but they are relating to the case of C.c. No. 23/2011 which was filed by the complainant herein against these Respondents and the same is still pending, before this Hon’ble Forum.
12. The case of the complainant policy No. 05090042/09/05/00000005 that he is entitled for the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- since his wife the deceased Lakshmi Devi had paid the premium through her savings bank account for coverage of risk under personal accident insurance scheme. The above policy does not pertain to the present claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- but pertains to the coverage of risk under Pragathi Kissan Card for the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/-which he has claimed in C.C. No. 23/2011. As per letter of repudiation dt. 13-8-2011 sent by R1 company the claim was not repudiated on account of non coverage of risk for want of premium, but due to non production of the relevant records such as FIR, Inquest report, Post mortem certificate, Forensic lab report and final report. As per the said letter unless and until those letters are submitted the claim cannot be presumed to be covered within the purview of the policy saving bank account holders. The premium was collected from the complainants and then the same was sent to the R1 company. Having admitted the fact that there was no dispute with regard to the coverage of risk from the R1 company side the complainant cannot say that the bank is liable to pay the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
13. As the policy was in force as on the date of death of the deceased Lakshmi Devi it is R1 company which alone is liable to indemnify by settling the assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant subject to production of the requisite documents as may be required by the R1 company. It is the duty of the complainant to produce all the required documents, otherwise the Respondent bank is not liable to pay assured sum. A perusal of the letter of repudiation sent by the R1 company on 13-8-2010 addressed to the Respondent bank clearly reveals that the bank is not at all responsible for payment of the assured sum. The complainant cannot claim any deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents bank. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable against the Respondent bank.
13. The R2 filed an additional counter stating that inspite of amendment carried out to the pleadings the complainant did not choose to correct the pleadings relevantly and properly and therefore, it is on this ground that the complainant may be pleased to dismiss. The complainant inspite of having award the fact that the pleadings are incorrect did not choose to amend the pleadings correctly which shows total inaction and negligent attitude on his part. As per dt. 13-8-2010 sent by R1 company the policy was in force as on the date of death. The insurance company did not take plea that there was no policy in force. But R2 repudiated the claim of the ground that the complainant did not produce the necessary documents to prove the cause of death. The R1 company is alone is liable to pay the amount and not R1.
14. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is any deficiency or negligence on the part of the Respondents?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii. To what relief?
15. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A10 were marked and on behalf of the Respondents Ex.B1 to B9 were marked.
16. Point No. 1 & 2. It is a fact that the deceased G. Lakshmi Devi, wife of the complainant had opened S.B. account with Kisan Credit Card account No. 16022/26006041 under Ex. A1. Ex. A2 is also to prove the same. Here there is no clarity of the policy number. The complainant was in confusion of policy numbers for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- in C.C. No. 22/2011 and C.C. No. 23/2011. Both polices were personal accidental insurance policies tie-up with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., As the complainant stated that her wife G. Lakshmi Devi died due to snake bite, to prove the same the complainant had not filed any authenticated evidence i.e. FIR, Post Mortem Certificate, family members certificate. Ex. A3 does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. A4 does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. A5 clearly shows that the complainant made representation to R1, for the same R1 company issued a repudiation letter dt. 13-8-2010 under Ex. A6 stating that the reasons for repudiation of the claim. Ex. A7 and Ex. A8 does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. A9 and A10 does not support the case of the complainant because they are from different companies. One company investigation does not rely on the other company investigations. So the complainant is not liable for any compensation. As the policy premium was not debited in time to the account of the deceased G. Lakshmi Devi and the complainant had not submitted the documents stating the cause of death of the deceased i.e. FIR, Post Mortem report, Forensic lab report, family members certificate and inquest report to the R1. The R1 had repudiated the claim of the complainant. It is the duty of late G. Lakshmi Devi or the complainant to verify whether the policy premium was debited in time by the bank officials or not. As per R2 the complainant was in confusion stating the policy numbers in C.C. No. 22/2011 and C.C. No. 23/2011 on the file of this Hon’ble forum. Although the complaint was amended by the counsel of the complainant and it is not clear in its pleadings. The R2 says that the policy premium amount were sent in time to the R1. But there is deficiency of service on the part of the complainant in producing the proper documents relating to the death of his wife to settle the claim. Ex. B1 filed by R1 clearly shows that the deceased G. Lakshmi Devi died due to ill-health. So it does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. B2 shows that the policy was expired on 31-7-2010 the deceased was died on 8-1-2009. Ex. B3 shows that the policy premium was sent to R1 by R2. Ex. B4 to Ex. B7does not support the case of the complainant. Ex. B8 shows that the complainant is a Pragathi Kisan Credit Card holder.
17. Under the above circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Respondents 1 & 2. The complainant in his complaint clearly says that he had lack of knowledge, and no education. The law does not agree with this. Ignorance of law is not excusable with lack of education and knowledge the complainant has to suffer himself. The R1 and R2 was not Responsible for his lack of knowledge and lack of education.
18. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th July 2011
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Opposite parties: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of S.B. A/c passbook No. 12155 issued in favour of Lakshmi Devi.
Ex. A2 P/c of statement of account issued by R2 bank.
Ex. A3 P/c of paper publication, dt. 10-12-2009.
Ex. A4 P/c of death certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Kamalapuram,
dt. 14-12-2009.
Ex. A5 P/c of letter from complainant to R1.
Ex. A6 Repudiation letter from R1 to R2, dt. 13-8-2009.
Ex. A7 P/c of letter from complainant to sarpanch.
Ex. A8 P/c of letter issued by Sarpanch, Kamalapuram, dt. 26-12-2009.
Ex. A9 P/c of claim details issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
dt. 29-4-2010.
Ex. A10 P/c o f death claim payment policy No. 41494162, dt. 22-2-2010.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: -
Ex. B1 P/c of family members certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kamalapuram, dt. 29-1-20209.
Ex. B2 P/c of insurance policy issued by R1.
Ex. B3 P/c of receipt issued by R1, dt. 7-10-2009.
Ex. B4 P/c of letter from Credit department to R1, dt. 7-10-2009.
Ex. B5 P/c of letter of Branch wise outstanding PKCC accounts as on
31-7-2009
Ex. B6 Statement of account holders issued by R2.
Ex. B7 Statement of account of Lakshmi Devi from 1-2-2007 to 31-12-2009.
Ex. B8 Statement of account of Lakshmi Devi from 1-1-2006 to 31-12-2009.
Ex. B9 Remittances statement of account issued by R1.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri G.M.B. Muralikrishna, Advocate for Complainant
2) Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for R1.
3) Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for R2.
1) Copy was made ready on
2) Copy was dispatched on
3) Copy of delivered to parties
B.V.P.
