BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, B.A.,LL.B.,President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 20th day of June, 2008
C.C.No. 111/07
Between:
M. Munivarnisa, W/o. Late M.N. Abdul Razak,
H.No.18-76, Kothapeta Street, Atmakur, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
The New India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manger,
H.D.C.T. Complex, Kurnool. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.111/07
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, seeking directions on the opposite party for payment to her Rs.1,00,000/- towards insured amount under Janata Personal Accident Insurance policy bearing No.611500/47/04/00720 of her deceased husband, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite party, interest at 18% p.a on the assured sum from the date of death of the policy holder and cost of the case alleging deficient conduct of the opposite party in settlement of claim made by her at the demise of her husband M.N. Abdul Razak on 22-6-2006 on account of accidental burn injuries occurred on the intervening night of 16/17–6-2006 on account of mosquito curtain catching fire of the lamp due to jump of a cat on lamp during said night, and the opposite party not settled the claim inspite of submission of all relevant material documents needed for settlement of claim.
2. In response to the receipt of the notice issued by this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party made its appearance and contested the case filling written version seeking dismissal of complaint for want of proper cause of action as the claim is pending enquiry as to the suspicious death of the policy holder and so the settlement of claim could not be made either way.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 and its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its grievances, the opposite party side has merely taken reliance on its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its contentions.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out alleged deficiency of opposite party in settlement of claim and there by the latter’s liability for the complainant’s claim.
5. The Ex.A1 is the policy bearing No.611500/47/04/00720 issued by the opposite party in favour of M.N. Abdul Razak covering the period of risk from 14-3-2005 to 13-3-2010 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the name of the complainant as nominee and wife of said policy holder. The said fact being not denied by the opposite party, the status of the complainant is remaining established as nominee and wife of the policy holder entitled to claim the contingent incidental benefits of the said policy.
6. The complainant is claiming as nominee and wife of the policy holder the assured amount of policy as the policy holder died on 22-6-2006, during the risk period, due to accidental burn injuries occurred on intervening night of 16/17-6-2006. The E.xA3 the certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.89/06 issued by Police Atmakur, on the statement of the complainant, says as to demise of her husband Abdul Razak on 22-6-2006 during treatment in Government Hospital Kurnool, for accidental burn injuries occurred on intervening night of 16/17-6-2006 on account of mosquito curtain catching fire of the lamp due to jump of a cat on lamp during said night. The Ex.A4 certified copy of the inquest held by police Atmakur on the dead body of Abdul Razak also envisages the cause of demise of decease was due to accidental fire injuries on catch of lamp fire to mosquito curtain on jump of a cat during night on said lamp. The Ex.A5 post-mortem report held on decease Abdul Razak also opines the cause of demise was due to burn injuries infection. The above material lends corroboration to the cause of demise of the deceased policy holder alleged in Ex.A2 claim form. The concerned police also basing on the said material of their investigation treated vide Ex.A6- the proceedings of S.D.P.O Atmakur and report of investigation officer – the said demise of Abdul Razak as accidental death due to burns.
7. When the supra stated material is envisaging in uni-tone the demise of Abdul Razak - policy holder – died to accidental burn injuries the conduct of the opposite parties brushing said material aside as one created by complainant in collusion with police without any justifiable material with it, appears to be a lame excuse to justify the non settlement of claim on the pretext of pendency of its investigation in that regard as to which any material placed by the opposite party.
8. As the conduct of non settlement or delay in settlement of a bonafide claim without any justifiable material as amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and as the material adduced by the complainant side not only establishes the bonafidies of the claim but also, as not rebutted by the opposite party, is making out the entitleness of the complainant for the benefits of the policy in Ex.A1 as the nominee of said policy holder.
9. As the opposite party by its lapsive conduct not only caused mental agony but also constrained the complainant to seek the forum for redressal of her bonafide consumer grievances, the opposite party is liable to compensate the suffered mental agony of the complainant and cost of this litigation.
10. consequently, in sum up of the above discussion and in result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant as nominee Rs.1,00,000/- as assured amount under Ex.A1 for the demise of the policy holder Addul Razak, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficient conduct of the opposite party in settling the claim, Rs.3,000/- as cost of this case within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite party with interest at 9% p.a from the date of said default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20th day of June, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of policy.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of claim form.
Ex.A3. Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.A4. Certified copy of Inquest Report.
Ex.A5. Certified copy of post mortem certificate.
Ex.A6. Proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur.
Ex.A7. Xerox copy of Death Certificate.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on Copy was delivered to parties
