2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Morrispet, Tenali,

    Guntur district.                                              … Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      26-04-11 in the presence of Sri G. Punna Reddy, advocate for complainant and of Sri P. Ramanjaneyulu, advocate for Opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @12% p.a., and for costs.

2.    In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainants are wife and daughter of one late Raghavaiah.  The said Raghavaiah insured his life under Janatha Personal Accident policy vide policy No.4761180104654 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  from 06-06-97 to 05-05-07.  The said Raghavaiah died in a train accident at Mondigodalu at Tenali on 15-09-02.  The said accident was registered as Cr.No.116/02 U/s 174 Cr.P.C of Tenali railway station.   The death of Raghavaiah has been intimated to the 2^nd opposite party on 16-09-02.   The complainants made several efforts to get back the insured amount from OP2.   But the 2^nd opposite party did not settle the claim.  The opposite parties though received notice of the complainant dated 26-04-06 kept quite.   The attitude of the opposite parties in not settling the claim amounted to deficiency of service.

3.    The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

One Papisetty Raghavaiah took Janatha Personal Accident coverage risk for the period from 06-06-97 to 05-06-07 nominating the 1^st complainant as a nominee.  After coming to know the policy the 1^st complainant (P. Sambrajyam) intimated the 2^nd opposite party on 1-11-04, two years after the death of her husband.   Meanwhile opposite parties cancelled all long term Janatha Personal Accident policies of RS.1,00,000/- and above for a period of 5 years and the same was proclaimed in electronic media and newspapers.   The said information sent to the insured  to the last known address through professional couriers was returned unserved.   The policy referred to above was not at all in force.   At the time of cancellation of long term Janath Personal Accident policy the 2^nd opposite party refunded premium voucher for Rs.124/-.   The present claim was made after cancellation of the policy.   The claim is barred by time.   The complainants followed the policy conditions.  Due to complex and complicated questions of law the complainants have to approach the Civil Court.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.       

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-10 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.    Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the insured amount?

3. To what relief?

6.  Undisputed facts:-    

1.  One P. Raghavaiah obtained Janatha Personal Accident

        policy for Rs.1,00,000/- (Ex.A-1).

2. The said Raghavaiah nominated his wife i.e, the 1^st                             complainant as a nominee.

3. The said Raghavaiah died in train accident (Ex.A-3 and A-4).

4. The complainants issued notice to the opposite party on                               27-05-05 (Exs.A-5 = B-9).

7.    The complainant filed IA 396/06 to condone the delay of 995 days.   This Forum on 10-09-07 dismissed IA 396/06.   The complainants herein preferred an appeal before the A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad in FA.No.1512/07 against the orders passed  in IA 396/06 wherein the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission held that the complaint was not barred by time.   The orders passed in FA.No.1512/07 made to become final.   In view of the orders passed in FA.No.1512/07 this point became infructous.   It is therefore answered accordingly.  

8.     POINTS 1 &2 :-  The contention of the opposite party is that it received intimation on 01-11-04 only from the complainant.  To prove it the opposite party relied on Ex.B-8 and it reads as follows:

        “

9.     Ex.B-8 did not disclose that the complainants claimed the insured amount earlier.  Therefore the contention of the complainants that they intimated death of the said Raghavaiah immediately to the opposite party cannot be believed.

10.   The further contention of the opposite party is that the long term Janatha Personal Accident policies were cancelled with effect from             22-07-02 and the information sent to the said Raghavaiah was returned unclaimed.  The opposite parties filed Ex.B-5 copy of letter and Ex.B-6 i.e., returned cover sent through courier service.   The said Raghavaiah died on 15-09-02 i.e., after the opposite parties cancelled Janatha Personal Accident policies (issued before May, 1999).

11.  Therefore, the contention of the complainants about they immediately bringing to the notice of the opposite parties about the death of the insured as mentioned in Ex.B-9 is devoid of merit.

12.  In Smt L. Laxmi Rani vs. President, INTUC Union & Anr. 2010 (1) CPR 502,

        “Ex.D-1, is the copy of proposal form of the insured, in which the insured himself had written his present address and permanent address.   We are convinced that the address which has been shown in Ex.D-1 is the same, on which letter Ex.D-4 was sent and had returned back.  Thus, we find that sufficient compliance of term No.5 of the policy for its cancellation has been made by the insurance company and intimation regarding cancellation of policy was duly sent by the insurance company during the life time of the insured and therefore, except the amount of premium, nothing more is payable to the complainant.   Ex.D-2, shows that Rs.381/- was the amount deposited as premium of the insurance, out of which proportionate amount for the period elapsed, Rs.201/- was deducted which was according to the term No.5.  Remaining amount, Rs.180/- was payable to the complainant.   As the letter had never reached to the insured or the complainant, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay this amount along with interest @9% p.a.”                          

13.   Since the letter addressed to the known address of the deceased/ insured returned unserved.  Awarding interest on Rs.124/- @9% p.a., from 22-07-02 till realization will meet the ends of justice.    These points are answered accordingly in favour of complainants.

14.   In the result, the complainant is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.124/- (Rupees one hundred and twenty four only) together with interest @9%     p.a., from 22-07-02 till the date of realization.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs.
3. The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 10th day of May, 2011.         

            MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:        

                                                                                           PRESIDENT