This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     02-06-11 in the presence of Sri D. Prasanna Kumar, advocate for the complainant and of Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for opposite party                        upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides 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 Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation/damages together with interest at 12% p.a., from 19-04-08 and for costs.

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

        Husband of the complainant namely A. Subba Reddy obtained individual Janatha Personal Accident Policy for Rs.5,00,000/- covering the risk from 04-05-99 to 03-05-09.   After collecting premium of Rs.1250/- the opposite party issued the policy bearing No.432303/48/00/1604.   The complainant is the nominee under the said policy.   The insured suffered death at platform No.1 of railway station, Warangal.   The complainant as a legal heir submitted a representation for the insured amount.   The opposite party gave a false reply stating that the policy was cancelled with effect from                  03-05-02 and sent the remaining premium on 24-04-02.   Neither the complainant nor the insured received the above letter.   The complainant was staying at Warangal but not at the address for which the opposite party sent letter on 24-04-02.  On 21-05-08 the complainant received a letter from the opposite party to the effect of repudiation.  The repudiation of the policy by the opposite party is baseless.   The complainant is not worldly-wise being a poor lady.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:-

The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party cancelled the Janatha Accident policy.   Branch office of the opposite party sent a letter to the insured on 23-04-02 regarding cancellation of policy to the address mentioned in the policy.  The opposite party issued the cheque for Rs.984/- towards refund of premium.   On the date of    death of the insured the policy was not in existence.  Opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to insured amount?
3. To what relief?

6.   POINTS 1&2:-   Ex.A-2 revealed that A. Subba Reddy (insured) died on 19-04-08 on plat form No.1 of Warangal railway station.  The said  Subba Reddy took individual Janatha Personal Accident policy for Rs.5,00,000/- on 04-05-99 and it was valid upto 03-05-09 (Ex.A-1).   Ex.A-3 revealed that the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant contending that the policy was cancelled with effect from 03-05-02.

7.     It is the contention of the opposite party that it communicated the cancellation of policy to the known address of the insured mentioned in the policy.   The address mentioned in the policy was Mr. A. Subba Reddy, M/s Kallam Spinning Mills Limited, NH-5, GT. Road, Chowdavaram, Guntur district.  The complainant in her affidavit mentioned that her self and the insured had been staying at Warangal by then.  To prove the dispatch of the letter the opposite party filed copy of list to whom the information was sent.   The communication was sent by ordinary post to the insured on 23-04-02 (Ex.B-2).                It is not the case of the complainant either herself or the insured has informed the change of address to the opposite party.   Therefore the contention of the opposite party about it sending information regarding cancellation of the policy to the insured is having considerable force.

8.     The complainant relied on the decision rendered by APSCDRC reported in K. Lakshmikantham and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (FA.No.894/2006, dated 15-07-09).  In the said decision quoting clause 6 of the conditions governing the Janatha Personal Accident insurance policy it was held

        “From a reading of the above provisions contained in condition No.6, what is required by the opposite party to do is only to dispatch a notice to the address available in the policy and happily sit under the comfort of a fiction that the same would be deemed to have been served whether the actual service occurred or not.   According to the opposite party the first notice was likewise sent but it was got returned by the insured himself with an endorsement that the said envelope could not be served as the name of the father and the house name were not fully written. This was an endorsement made by the postal authorities. Unfortunately the District Forum made an observation in the order that the insured refused the same.  In any view of the matter, admittedly the opposite party did not enclose the cheque along with the termination notice.  Opposite party had relied upon its own condition in the policy to establish the legal fiction of deemed service.  This is totally impermissible as ‘deemed service’ is available only when it is exercised under some authority of law.  There is no such law cited by the insurance policy.  Likewise even at the stage of forwarding the cheque subsequent to the termination, their complaint was that the insured again stage managed return on flimsy grounds”.

9.    But in this case, the opposite party filed Ex.B-2 and Ex.B-3 documents to show that it sent information regarding cancellation of the policy in question by ordinary post.   It is not the case of the complainant that they informed the change of address to the opposite party.   Therefore the above decision in our considered opinion is not applicable.

10.   The complainant also did not file the original policy into Forum as rightly contended by the opposite party.  The complaint as well as affidavit was silent about the original policy.   In the absence of original policy the contention of the opposite party about the complainant or the insured encashing the cheque is having considerable force.  In view of afore mentioned discussion, complaint is liable to be dismissed.   This point therefore is answered in favour of opposite party.

11.  POINT No.3:-     In view of above findings, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.  

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 15th day of June, 2011.        

Sd/-XXX                                   Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:        

                                                                                                                        Sd/-XXX

                                                                                PRESIDENT