Date of filing: 13-08-2013

Date of Disposal: 21-01-2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President                    

            Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member

                                        Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Wednesday, the 21^st day of January, 2015

C.C.NO.141/2013

Between:

1. Chitra Sivaiah S/o Late Ramappa
2. C.Ramesh S/o Chitra Sivaiah
3. C.Srinivasulu S/o Chitra Sivaiah
4. Smt.Sri Latha D/o Chitra Sivaiah

All are residents of Penubolu Village,

Ramagiri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.             …  Complainants

                Vs.

1.  The P.I.C. Ramagiri Primary Co-Op. Society

 Ramagiri Village & Mandal

 Ananthapuramu District.

1.  The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 rep. by its Divisional Manager,

 Meda Complex, Subash Road,

1.               1floor
2.              anantapur
3.  

1.  The Chief Executive Officer,

 A.D.C.C. Bank, Subash Road,

 Ananthapuramu.                                                            ….  Opposite Parties

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of     Sri M.Chandramouli, Advocate for the complainants and Sri Y.Ramalinga Reddy, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party, Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the                               2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party is called absent and set-exparte on 05-02-2014 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - The complainants (1) Chitra Sivaiah S/o Late Ramappa (2) C.Ramesh S/o Chitra Sivaiah (3) C.Srinivasulu S/o Chitra Sivaiah and    (4) Smt.Sri Latha S/o D.Chitra Sivaiah, all are residents of Penubolu Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Ananathapuramu District have filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (1) The P.I.C. Ramagiri Primary                            Co-Operative Society, Ramagiri Village & Mandal, Ananthapuramu District (2) The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Meda Complex, Subash Road, 1^st floor, Ananthapuramu and (3) The Chief Executive Officer, ADCC Bank, Subash Road, Ananthapuramu to direct them to pay policy assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint and interest   @ 18% p.a. from the date of default till the date of realization with the following brief allegations that:

2.         The deceased Chitra Vannuramma W/o Chitra Sivaiah was an agriculturist and she has opened an account with the 1^st opposite party Branch and she was the KCC Account-holder.  The said Chitra Vannuramma was operating her account vide CKCC Account No.77971, General No.2088 and also raising crop loans as an agriculturist.  As per KCC facility every KCC customer is a policy-holder and her nominee is entitled for claims in case of death of the policyholder.  Accordingly, the opposite party No.2/United India Insurance Company has issued policy bearing No.051004/47/11/43/00001031 for the period 31-01-2012 to 30-01-2013 to the said Chitra Vannuramma and the opposite party No.3 is sending the premium towards insurance policy regularly within time to the Insurance Company by deducting the amount from the complainant’s account. The                        1^st complainant is husband and nominee of Smt.Chitra Vannuramma for the said account and  the said account-holder/insured Chitra Vannuramma died on 13-04-2012 due to electric shock and Ramagiri P.S. is registered the same in Cr.No.16/2012 .  Smt.Chitra Vannuramma died leaving behind her the complainants as her legal heirs and thus the 1^st complainant being the L.R. and nominee for the policy is entitled for the insurance claim amount.   On number of times, the complainants approached the opposite parties to settle their claim, but they have not yet settled the claim for the reasons best known to them.  The complainants submitted all relevant and necessary documents in this regard to settle his claim and all his efforts were proved futile.   The 2^nd opposite party’s investigator came to the 1^st complainant and enquired about the death of his wife and also questioned the complainants with regard to delay in claiming the policy amount.  The complainants have no knowledge about the procedure and they are not aware of the KCC account of the deceased and hence they could not approach the 2^nd opposite party/Insurance Company immediately.  The investigator also submitted his report to the 2^nd opposite party, but till date the opposite parties have not settled the claim of the complainants.  The 1^st complainant got issued a legal notice on 22-04-2013 to the opposite parties and the said notice was served on the opposite parties 2 & 3  and the notice on 1^st opposite party is returned with an endorsement ‘door locked.’  The opposite parties have not responded and not settled the claim of the complainants and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants suffered mental agony in this regard.  Hence, the complaints claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint total Rs.1,50,000/- and other reliefs.

3.         The 1^st opposite party has filed counter denying the above allegations of the complainants and further contended that this opposite party sanctioned a crop loan of Rs.20,000/- vide General No.2088 and CKCC No.1158 dt.31-12-2011 to Smt.Chitra Vannuramma wife of the 1^st complainant along-with other KCC Holders of Janatha Accidental Insurance Policy-holders.  The other KCC Holders of Janatha Accidental Insurance Policy holders were also sanctioned the crop loan along-with Chitra Vannuramma. This opposite party-society paid policy premium to the 2^nd opposite party. The complainants are put to strict proof of the allegations that Smt.Chitra Vannuramma died due to electrical shock.  This opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants as claimed in the complaint.  Hence the claim against this opposite party is liable to be dismissed.   Hence, prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint.

4.         On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party filed counter denying the above allegations of the complainants and further contended that the complaint is bad for                          non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the Branch Office of this opposite party company, which is the policy issuing office is not added as party to the proceedings and that the Branch Office of this opposite party Company is necessary party to the proceedings and this opposite party has nothing to do with the said KCC Scheme  Insurance Policy – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the Branch Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ananthapuramu and all the records pertaining to the above case are with the Branch Office only and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.   The deceased has availed crop loans from the different Banks for the same lands and obtained two KCC Scheme Policies – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance policies by suppressing the material facts deliberately in order to get maximum advantage from the opposite party company and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount under the said contract of insurance and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   The deceased has taken the agricultural loans in Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch and also in ADCC Bank, Dharmavaram by submitting the same lands Pass Book fraudulently.   In Policy No.051000/47/11/43/00000155, which was issued by the 2^nd opposite party/Insurance Company the claim was settled for Rs.50,000/- by the 2^nd opposite party long ago and that the deceased has taken two Kishan Credit Card insurance Policies, one in the 2^nd opposite party company and another from the Branch Office of this opposite party and played a deliberate fraud on the 2^nd opposite party company without disclosing the material facts and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount under the said contract of insurance and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The                          2^nd opposite party company stated that KCC Holder is not permitted to take two KCC Insurance Policies by submitting the same lands pass book and that the said KCC holder is permitted to obtain only one KCC Insurance Policy but certainly not for more than one and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complaints are not entitled to any amount under the said contract of insurance issued to KCC Holders. Further the complainants have not complied with the necessary requirements of the opposite party company as required under the terms and conditions of the said Janatha Personal accident Insurance Policy.  Inspite of repeated requests by their Branch Office, Ananthapuramu, the complainants have not submitted the material and important documents such as original death certificate, original Family members Certificate issued by the concerned authorities, I.D. proof documents, Final Report/Charge Sheet if any issued by the concerned police and the KCC Pass Book with complete and up-to-date entries, electricity bills and the preliminary report of APCPDCL and other required documents and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount of compensation. The opposite party further contended that no premium has been paid/ debited by the Banker as on the date of incident/death of the deceased to cover the risk under the policy period. There is abnormal delay in giving intimation to this opposite party about the death of the deceased in the said incident.  Hence, the complainants have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy issued to the KCC Policyholders and that direct breach of one of the material conditions of the said policy is very much fatal to the claim of the complainants and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount or compensation.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.  All these allegations are invented only for the purpose of this unjust complaint and that there is absolutely no truth in the said allegations.  Hence prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.         In order to establish the above rival contentions, both sides have adduced evidence.  On behalf of the complainants Chitra Sivaiah/1^st complainant has filed chief affidavit and the same is treated as chief examination of PW1 in this complaint and further the complainants relied on Ex.A1 to A11 i.e.  Ex.A1 is photo copy of S.B. Account Pass Book relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. Ex.A2 is photo copy of Co-Operative Kisan Credit Card-cum- Pass Book relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by Ramagiri Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society.  Ex.A3 is photo copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16/12 of Ramagiri P.S.   Ex.A4 is photo copy of Inquest Report relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.A5 is photo copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.A6 is photo copy of Death Certificate relating to Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Ramagiri Mandal.  Ex.A7 is photo copy of Family Members Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma. Ex.A8 is office copy of legal notice dt.22-04-2013 got issued by the 1^st complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 3. Ex.A9 is courier receipts          dt.24-04-2013 for sending notices to opposite parties 2 & 3.  Ex.A10 is postal receipt dt.25-04-2013 for sending notice to the 1^st opposite party.  Ex.A11 is postal acknowledgment of the 1^st opposite party.

6.         On the other hand, on behalf of the 1^st opposite party Sri G.Krishnaiah has filed chief affidavit and the same is treated as chief examination of RW1 and placed reliance on Ex.B1 & B2.  Ex.B1 is photo copy of Shadow Ledger relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur.  Ex.B2 is photo copy of Assumption of charge issued by the 1^st opposite party. 

7.      On behalf of 2^nd opposite party Shri S.Sreem Naik, Assistant Manager has filed chief affidavit and the same is treated as chief examination of RW2 and placed reliance on Ex.B3 to B16. Ex.B3 is photo copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.B4 is photo copy of Form of application for intimation of claim given by 1^st complainant. Ex.B5 is photo copy of Shadow Ledger relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur.  Ex.B6 is photo copy of Insurance Policy issued by the   2^nd opposite party. Ex.B7 is letter dt.24-05-2012 sent by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch  to the   2^nd opposite party. Ex.B8 is letter dt.07-06-2012 submitted by the 1^st complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.  Ex.B9 is of letter dt.09-07-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite party to Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch. Ex.B10 is letter dt.19-07-2012 sent by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch to the 2^nd opposite party.  Ex.B11 is photo copy of pattadar pass book relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.B12 is photo copy of statement of account relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate.  Ex.B13 is office note                     dt.13-03-2013 issued by the 2^nd opposite party relating to deceased Chtira Vannuramma.  Ex.B14 is Disbursement Voucher   dt.19-04-2013 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. Ex.B15 is attested photo copy of Ramagiri P.A.C.S. Janatha Insurance Policyholders for the year                            31-01-2012 to 30-01-2013.  Ex.B16 is attested photo copy of receipt dt.09-02-2012 issued by the Anantapur District Co-Opposite Party. Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur Branch.

Heard both sides

8.         Now the points that arise for determination are:

  1.  Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 

       against the complainants ?

   2.  Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim as prayed for ?

   3.   To what relief?

9.       POINT NOs.1  & 2 -  The learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the deceased Chitra Vannuramma, who is no other than the wife of the 1^st complainant and mother of the rest of the complainants was an agriculturist and was KCC Accountholder with the 1^st opposite party branch.  The 2^nd opposite party has issued a policy for the period 31-01-2012 to 30-01-2013.  The 1^st complainant being legal heir and nominee in the said policy after her death and rest of the complainants are her legal heirs.  Number of times the 1^st complainant approached the opposite parties to settle their claim but they have not yet settled the claim for the reasons best known to them. So the complainants’ efforts went in vain to receive the amount from the opposite parties under the policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 

10.       On the other hand, the counsel for the 1^st opposite party submitted that at the time of arguments admitting that the deceased Vannuramma was the KCC Account holder in their society.  The 1^st opposite party-society paid the policy premium to the 2^nd opposite party.  As such, this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainants.  Since whatever the amount paid on behalf of the deceased towards policy premium were paid by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party.

11.       On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party submitted that at the time of arguments that the deceased Vannuramma had availed crop loans from different Banks for the same lands and obtained two KCC Scheme Policies Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policies by suppressing the material facts deliberately in order to get maximum advantage from the opposite party-company and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount under the said contract of insurance.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  More-over the complaint is bad for                              non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the Branch Office of this opposite party company, which is the policy issuing office is not added as party to the proceedings  and that the Branch Office of this opposite party company is a necessary party to the proceedings and that this opposite party has nothing to do with the said Kishan Credit Card Scheme Insurance Policy – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the Branch Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,  and all the records pertaining to the above case are with the Branch Office and more-over the KCC Holder is permitted to obtain one KCC Insurance Policy  and KCC holder is not permitted to take two KCC Insurance Policies  by submitting the same lands pass books.  Further the complainants’ inspite of repeated requests also does not furnish the important documents in order to process the alleged claim.  As such, the complainants are not entitled to any amount of compensation under the said contract of insurance.  No premium has been paid/debited by the Banker as on the date of incident/death of the deceased to cover the risk under the policy period.  Since the premium has not been debited by the Banker as on the date of incident/death under the policy period, the question of acceptance of risk does not arise.   More-over, there is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the Branch Office of the 2^nd opposite party company about the death of the deceased.  As such the complainants have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued to the KCC Holders.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.       The 3^rd opposite party is called absent and set-exparte.

13.       In view of the above rival contentions, it appears that the 1^st opposite party has admitted that the deceased Chitra Vannuramma was the KCC Account-holder in their Society and she has also sanctioned crop loan and further 1^st opposite party admitted that the 1^st opposite party paid policy premium paid by the deceased Chitra Vannuramma to the 2^nd opposite party.  The said admission of the 1^st opposite party made it clear that the deceased Vannuramma was KCC Accountholder-cum-Insurance Policy and the said policy was issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the said Chitra Vannuramma and further it is understood from the contentions of the complainants and 1^st opposite party that the said Chitra Vannuramma was sending premiums towards insurance policy regularly within time to the insurance company and the 1^st opposite party sending the said premiums regularly to the 2^nd opposite party.   Even the 2^nd opposite party also not denied about taking Insurance Policy by Chitra Vannuramma from the 2^nd opposite party and also she was KCC holder with the 1^st opposite party Branch.  The main contention of the 2^nd opposite party was that the deceased Chitra Vannuramma had availed crop loan from different Banks for the same lands and obtained two KCC Scheme Policy – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policies by suppressing the material facts deliberately in order to get maximum advantage from the opposite party company. In fact, KCC holder is not permitted to take two KCC Insurance Policies by submitting the same lands pass books and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of Branch Office of 2^nd opposite party and liable for dismissal.

14.       In order to establish the above rivalry contentions, both sides have adduced evidence as stated above.

15.       The evidence of PW1/1^st complainant Chitra Sivaiah on his chief affidavit goes to show that “ he is husband and nominee of Smt.Chitra Vannuramma for the account vide CKCC Account No.77971, General No.2088 and also raising crop loans etc., as an agriculturist and she is the policyholder and he is nominee for the said account.  Chitra Vannuramma died on 13-04-2012  due to electric shock and Ramagiri P.S. registered the same in Cr.No.16/2012, which is Ex.A3.  Ex.A4 is Photo copy of inquest report                           dt.13-04-2012.  Ex.A5 is Postmortem certificate dt.13-04-2012. Ex.A6 is photo copy of Death Certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Ganthimarri Panchayat, Ramagiri Mandal dt.27-04-2012. Ex.A7 is photo copy of Family Members Certificate                            dt.05-05-2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Ramagiri.   The above documents i.e. Ex.A3 to A7 made it very clear that the death of Vannuramma was due to electric shock and the complaint was lodged on 12-04-2012 and FIR was registered on 13-04-2012.  So there was no delay in lodging the complaint by the complainants with regard to death intimation to the police and her death was accidental   Ex.A7 Family Members Certificate reveals that the complainants are legal heirs of the deceased Vannuramma and the 1^st complainant is husband of Vannuramma.  Ex.A1 is photo copy of pattadar pass book account No.8589 in the name of Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.A2 is photo copy of Co-Op. Kisan Credit Card-cum-Pass Book for Ramagiri PACS vide CKCC A/c No.77971.”

16.       Further the evidence of PW1 on his chief affidavit goes to show on his chief affidavit that “ on number of times he approached the opposite parties to settle his claim, but for the reasons best known to them, they are not yet settled the claim.  He submitted necessary and relevant documents in this regard to settle his claim and all his efforts were proved futile.  The 2^nd opposite party’s investigator came to him and enquired about the death of his wife and also questioned the other complainants with regard to delay in claiming the policy amount. PW1 has no knowledge about the procedure and they are not aware of the KCC account of the deceased and hence they have not approached the opposite party No.2 Insurance Company immediately.   He learnt that the Investigator submitted his report but till date the opposite parties have not settled their claim.   Then he issued legal notice dt.22-04-2013 to the opposite parties and the said notice was served on the opposite parties 2 & 3 and the notice of 1^st opposite party returned with an endorsement door locked.   Ex.A8 is Office copy of legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite parties. Ex.A9 is courier receipt dt.24-04-2013 vide receipt No.34913.  Ex.A10 is Courier Receipt vide receipt No.34914 dt.24-04-2013. Ex.A11 is postal receipt dt.25-04-2013 and Ex.A12 is returned postal cover issued to PACS, Ramagiri. The above documents Ex.A8 to A11 proved the correspondence made by the 1^st complainant to get his claim from the opposite parties. “

17.       Further the testimony of PW1 goes to show that “ the opposite parties have not responded and not settled his claim.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and he suffered mental agony in this regard.”

18.       On the other hand the evidence of RW1 on his chief affidavit goes to show that                     “ their society sanctioned a crop loan of Rs.20,000/- vide General No.2088 and CKCC No.1158  dt.31-12-2011 to Smt.Chitra Vannuramma  wife of the 1^st complainant along-with other Kisan Credit Card Holders of Janatha Personal Accidental Insurance Policy-holders. They were also sanctioned the crop loan along-with Chitra Vannuramma.  Their society paid policy premium to the 2^nd opposite party.  Ex.B1 is copy of C.K.C.C.Loan Ledger of Loan No.118 relating to Smt.Chtira Vannuramma and Ex.B2 is copy of Assumption of Charge letter dt.15-08-2013. The above testimony of RW1 supporting the version of the complainants with regard to taking insurance policy from the 2^nd opposite party by Chitra Vannuramma and also she was the KCC Account-holder in the 1^st opposite party society and she also obtained crop loan from the 1^st opposite party society. The said testimony of RW1 strengthens the version of the complainants in the said           regard. “

19.    The evidence of RW2 on his chief affidavit i.e.Shri S.Sreeram Naik, Assistant Manager of 2^nd opposite party goes to show on his chief affidavit that “ the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the Branch Office of this opposite party company, which is the policy issuing office is not added as party to the proceedings and that the Branch Office of this opposite party company is a necessary party to the proceedings and that this opposite party company has nothing to do with the said Kisan Credit Card Scheme Insurnace Policy – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the Branch office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur and all the records pertaining to the above case are with the Branch office only  and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.  The deceased Vannuramma has availed crop loans from different Banks for the same lands and obtained two KCC Scheme Policies – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policies by suppressing the material facts deliberately in order to get maximum advantage from the 2^nd opposite party company.  The deceased has taken the agricultural loans in Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch and also in A.D.C.C. Bank, Dharmavaram by submitting the same lands pass book fraudulently in policy No.051000/47/11/43/00000155, which was issued by the 2^nd opposite party company – Insurance Company, the claim was already settled for Rs.50,000/- by the 2^nd opposite party company long ago and that the deceased has taken two Kishan Credit Card Insurance Policies one in the 2^nd opposite party company and another from the Branch Office of this opposite party and played a deliberate fraud on the 2^nd opposite party company without disclosing the material facts and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount  under the said contract of insurance. The Kishan Credit Cardholder is not permitted to take two KCC Insurance Policies by submitting the same lands pass books and that the said KCC holder is permitted to obtain only one Kishan Credit Card Insurance Policy, but certainly not for more than one and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Inspite of repeated requests by their Branch Office, Anantapur, the complainants have not submitted the material and important documents such as original Death Certificate, original Family Members Certificate issued by the concerned authorities, I.D.Proof documents, Final Report/Charge Sheet if any. Since the deceased is said to be died due to electrocution, their Branch Office, Anantapur called for electricity bills and the preliminary report of APCPDCL (APSEB), Dharmavaram in order to process the alleged claim.    No premium has been paid/debited by the Banker as on the date of incident/death of the deceased to cover the risk under the policy period, the question of acceptance of risk does not arise.   There is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the Branch Office of this opposite party company about the death of the deceased in the said incident and that the complainants have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued to KCC holders. Hence, the complainants are not entitled to any amount of compensation. More-over the complainants are not the nominees of the deceased under the said contract of insurance. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party company.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

20.       In support of the above oral testimony of RW2, he placed reliance on the documents Ex.B3 is copy of KCC Scheme Policy issued by the Branch Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur issued in favour of Anantapur District                               Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,  Anantapur with terms and conditions.  Ex.B4 is form of application for intimation of claim.  Ex.B5 is certified copy of Shadow Ledger. Ex.B6 is copy of KCC Scheme Policy issued by the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kadapa issued in favour of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kadapa. Ex.B7 is original letter dt.24-05-2012 of Andrha Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate to the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Anantapur.  Ex.B8 is original letter dt.07-06-2012 of the 1^st complainant addressed to the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Anantapur.  Ex.B9 is copy of the letter dt.09-07-2012 of the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Anantapur to the Branch Manager, Andrha Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch.  Ex.B10 is original letter dt.19-07-2012 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch to the Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anantapur.  Ex.B11 is copy of pattadar pass book issued in favour of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma. Ex.B12 is certified copy of Statement of Account relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate. Ex.B13 is office note dt.13-03-2013 of the 2^nd opposite party.   Ex.B14 is disbursement voucher dt.19-04-2013 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

21.   The main contention of the 2^nd opposite party/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., is that the complaint is bad for  non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the Branch Office of this opposite party company, which is the policy issuing office is not added as party to the proceedings  and  the Branch Office of this opposite party company is a necessary party to the proceedings and this opposite party has nothing to do with the said Kishan Credit Card Scheme Insurance Policy – Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy issued by the Branch Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,  and all the records pertaining to the above case are with the Branch Office and more-over the KCC Holder is permitted to obtain one KCC Insurance Policy  and is not permitted to take two KCC Insurance Policies  by submitting the same lands pass books.

22.       On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainants opposed the said contention of the 2^nd opposite party, which is disbursing of insurance amount to the policyholders stating that the 2^nd opposite party being Divisional Office of the Branch office, the said Branch Office  issued the policy to the deceased Chitra Vannuramma as such  the Divisional Office is having ample power to call for the records from the Branch Office and the Branch Office is only formal party to the proceedings and not necessary party and as such non-joinder of Branch Office to the proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings since the main Divisional Office was added as 2^nd opposite party in this complaint, which is disbursing of insurance amount to the policyholders, even the policyholders have taken policy from the Branch Office.”   The above argument of the learned counsel for the complainants’ appears to be having  force since the Divisional Office has ample power to scrutinize the records pertaining to the Branch Office whenever an occasion arise and as such the contention of the 2^nd opposite party in the said record is not tenable.

23.       With regard to another objection that the KCC Holder is not permitted to take more than one KCC Insurance Policy not appears to be having force because the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of 2^nd opposite party is not incorporated the above conditions in the Insurance Policy conditions.  Ex.B3 is accident insurance to Kisan Credit Card Holders (Janatha Personal Accident Policy).  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that the K.C.C.Holder has to take only one policy is not incorporated in Ex.B3.  The said condition was not found place in Ex.B3.  It is settled law that the Insurance Company has to stipulate each and every condition in the policy terms and even courts have no power to add and delete such terms of the policy, which were incorporated in the said insurance policy conditions and more-over Ex.B3 clearly contained that “  in case of death of the insured, the capital sum insured of Rs.50,000/- is payable under this clause. “ Further KCC Scheme Policy schedule under Ex.B3 contains the special peril wherein it is mentioned that  “sum insured is Rs.1,00,000/- per insured person. In case insured having multiple accounts. “ It shows that in case of multiple accounts of the policyholder his liability will be restricted only to Rs.1,00,000/-. The said condition does not indicate that the policyholder is not entitled any amount in case if he has multiple accounts. On the other hand it restricted up-to Rs.1,00,000/-. That means there is no bar for KCC holder to have more than one account.   Only in such case his claim will be restricted only up-to Rs.1,00,000/-.  The very document of Ex.B3 filed by the 2^nd opposite party is strengthening the version of the complainants rather than 2^nd opposite party in the said regard.

24.       Another contention on the chief affidavit of RW2 is that “ insptie of repeated requests by their Branch Office, Anantapur, the complainants have not submitted the material and important documents such as original Death Certificate, original Family Members Certificate issued by the concerned authorities, I.D. Proof documents, final report/charge sheet if any issued by the concerned police  and KCC Pass Book  with complete and up-to date entries and other required documents and as such the complainants are not entitled to any amount of compensation under the said contract of insurance and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   If it is so, it is the evidence of RW2 on his chief affidavit that “ the deceased has taken the agricultural loans in Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch and also in A.D.C.C. Bank, Dharmavaram by submitting the same lands pass book fraudulently in policy No.051000/47/11/43/00000155, which was issued by the 2^nd opposite party company – Insurance Company, the claim was already settled for Rs.50,000/- by the 2^nd opposite party company long ago. “  In support of the said evidence of RW2, he placed reliance on the documents i.e. Ex.B4 is original copy of Form of application for intimation of claim given by 1^st complainant/C.Sivaiah intimating the death of Chitra Vannuramma on                              12-04-2012 and Ex.B5 is certified copy of Shadow Ledger relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur. Ex.B6 is copy of KCC Scheme Insurance Policy issued by the   Divisional Office, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kadapa/ 2^nd opposite party to the insured M/s Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kadapa.. Ex.B7 is  original letter dt.24-05-2012 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch, Ramagiri Mandal  addressed to the Divisional Office/ 2^nd opposite party wherein it is mentioned that Chitra Vannuramma                    W/o Chitra Sivaiah died on 12-04-2012 due to electric shock and asked for claim forms as early as possible.   Ex.B8 is original letter dt.07-06-2012 of the 1^st complainant addressed to the 2^nd opposite party intimating the death of Chitra Vannuamma on                     12-04-2012 and claiming insurance amount. For that the 2^nd opposite party has addressed to the Branch Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch dt.09-07-2012 under Ex.B9 that the 2^nd opposite party calling for documents as mentioned in Ex.B9.  Apart from it the said Ex.B9 also contains that “ in Sl.No.8 that the account holder died on  12-04-2012 but the intimation is received on 30-05-2012 i.e. after lapse of 48 days .  As per policy conditions, intimation should be given within 30 days from the date of death.  Please furnish the reasons for delay intimation.”   The said Ex.B9 is pertaining to policy No.051000/47/11/43/00000155 of deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.B10 is original letter dt.19-07-2012 of Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch , Ramagiri Mandal to the 2^nd opposite party submitting the documents contained therein pertaining to the documents called by the 2^nd opposite party as per Ex.B9, But Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S. Gate Branch has not given any reason for the delay of intimation.  Ex.B13 is original Office Note dt.13-03-2013 of 2^nd opposite party stating that the claim is approved for Rs.50,000/- only.  Ex.B14 is copy of voucher. The above documents made  it very clear that the 2^nd opposite party has approved Rs.50,000/- towards the claim pertaining to the Insurance Policy of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma inspite of raising objections under Ex.B9 to Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank with regard to giving intimation after lapse of 48 days . Even RW2 admitted the same in his evidence that the 2^nd opposite party settled the claim pertaining to the policy No.051000/47/11/43/00000155.  Admittedly the said policy, which was settled by the                  2^nd opposite party is also pertaining to the deceased Chitra Vannuramma and the present policy No.051004/47/11/43/00001031 is also pertaining to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  The evidence of RW1 on his chief affidavit goes to show that their society paid premiums towards insurance policy regularly within time to the Insurance Company/2^nd opposite party by deducting the amount from the account of the   1^st complainant’s wife late Chitra Vannuramma, who was the accountholder as well as policyholder.  Ex.B1 is copy of Shadow Ledger  of KCC Loan holder – Loan No.1158 relating to deceased Chitra Vannauramma,

25.     When the 2^nd opposite party has settled the claim of the deceased pertaining to Policy No. 051000/47/11/43/00000155 inspite of lapse of intimation after 48 days, then what made the 2^nd opposite party to take the said objection in respect of the policy in question of the deceased pertaining to Policy No. 051004/47/11/43/00001031, when there is no stipulation or condition in the policy terms that the policyholder should not be permitted to take more than one policy.  In this context, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that “ the objection taken by the 2^nd opposite party in its counter only to avoid payment of insurance policy claim amount though the complainants have submitted all the documents as per the procedure  and further the 2^nd opposite party has not denied payment of insurance premium amount from the account of KCC Holders and not denied accidental death of wife of the 1^st complainant and nomination of the                               1^st complainant and now coming with false allegation to avoid insurance policy amount to the complainants.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as the complainants suffered mental agony in this regard.”  The above argument of the counsel for the complainants cannot be ruled out in view of the documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party as discussed supra.  More-over, the claimants are only the farmers, who avails loan from Rural Banks and the Bank, who sanctions loan will pay insurance amount on behalf of the account holder, who avails loans and generally Banks will play major role in taking Insurance Policies on behalf of the farmers. More-over there is no dispute regarding accidental death of the 1^st complainant’s wife, in view of Ex.A3 is photo copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16/12 of Ramagiri P.S.,  Ex.A4 is photo copy of Inquest Report relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma,  Ex.A5 is photo copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma and  Ex.A6 is photo copy of Death Certificate relating to Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Ramagiri Mandal.  As per Ex.A7 i.e. photo copy of Family Members Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma, the 1^st complainant is husband of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma and rest of the complainants are children of the deceased Chtira Vannuramma.  More-over, as per the records, the 1^st complainant is nominee for the insurance policy taken by the deceased Chitra Vannuramma and particularly there is no such condition in any Bank in writing that the persons should not be eligible for second loan if already availed first loan from another Bank and further there is no evidence on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party to show that the opposite parties have taken all these objections at the time of collecting two insurance policy premiums from the wife of the 1^st complainant and when the opposite parties collected the insurance premium amount from the 1^st complainant’s wife  for two policies from two Banks and there is no contra evidence with regard to collection of two policies premium  amounts from the two Banks.  Then the opposite parties should pay the insurance claim amount. In view of the above facts and circumstances, there is deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in not paying the insurance amount to the complainants.  The 1^st complainant lost his wife and rest of the complainants lost their beloved mother.  There is already mental agony suffered by them due to untimely accidental death of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma and they have also suffered mental agony again to get insurance claim of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma by placing this litigation proceedings. 

26.  No doubt the learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party placed reliance on the decisions as follows:

  (i)  Order of the Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dt.03-03-2009 in F.A.No.557/2006 in C.D.No.04/2003 of District Consumer Forum, Nizamabad that  “ the only contention that was taken by the Bank in these appeals is that after disposal of complaints, it came to learn that the complainants had also taken loan from the PACS for the same crop and this fact was suppressed.  Assuming the fact to be true, there is no proof that such a benefit was given by them.  It is not known as to why the Bank did not take any action when it came to know about the loan that was taken by the complainants from the PACS.  Since this issue was not raised earlier and there was no evidence adduced in this regard. It is too late to take such contention. If really the Bank thinks that this plea would enable them to get over their liability, they can independently take action as well.  It has nothing to do with this liability.  In view of the fact that such contention was not taken by the Bank earlier resisting the complainants, we do not see any reason to go into the fact as to the amount borrowed by the complainants from PACS and the benefits deprived by them.  The said fact was not an issue in the complaints.  We do not see any merits in these appeals. “

  (ii)  The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party placed reliance on the Order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2143-2148/2009 dt.20-09-2010 wherein it was held that “ Yet other limb of argument pressed into service by petitioner Bank was that since beneficiary farmers who had availed crop loan also from Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., for Kharif Crop during the year 2001 and were adequately compensated for loss of crop during that year, they cannot be benefited twice by both the institutions.

             State Commission rightly, in our view, negatived those contentions raised on behalf of Bank for the reason that the factum of farmers having been compensated for loss also from other institutions was not brought before the District Forum and that apart, it was open to the Bank to take recourse to appropriate action against the farmers.  Rightly, it was too late to take such a contention and if Bank considers that this factum would enable them to get over their liability, they can independently take action as well.  Defence taken by Bank being untenable, we are of the view that finding of State Commission was quite sustainable, which, we accordingly affirm, dismissing the revision petitions with no order as to costs. “

            In this context, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the proposition of law in the above decisions relied by the counsel for the 2^nd opposite party nowhere concluded that the Insurance Policy-holder is not supposed to take more than one policy. The above argument of the learned counsel cannot be ruled out in the said regard.

        (iii)  Similarly the counsel for the 2^nd opposite party placed reliance on another decision in  IV (2013) CPJ 15 (NC)  National Commission, New Delhi  - Satpal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & ors, wherein it was held that “ theft of vehicle  delay in intimation breach of conditions of policy “, wherein the lordships observed that the State Commission rightly allowed the appeal as there was delay of 30 days  in intimation to the insurance company and the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the policy. But the facts and circumstances of the said decisions are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand because in the above said decision theft of vehicle took place in respect of the vehicle and if intimation is given within time without delay, then the opposite party has sufficient opportunity to investigate into the matter and there will be chance to trace out the vehicle.  But in the instant case, the  death took place due to electric shock to the deceased Chtira Vannuramma and it is evident from the police records i.e. Ex.A3 is photo copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16/12 of Ramagiri P.S.,  Ex.A4 is photo copy of Inquest Report relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma,  Ex.A5 is photo copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma and  Ex.A6 is photo copy of Death Certificate relating to Chitra Vannuramma issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Ramagiri Mandal.  The Police investigation cannot be ruled out without any contra grounds to that of Ex.A3 to A6.  So in the present case even if intimation was given within time to the  2^nd opposite party, it will not improve the case of the 2^nd opposite party in view of Ex.A1 to A6.  More-over, from the very documents of 2^nd opposite party as discussed under Ex.B9 and B13 the 2^nd opposite party has settled the policy of the deceased for Rs.50,000/- though there is intimation after  lapse of 48 days.  When the said objection was not become obstacle for settlement of the claim of the deceased pertaining to the policy No. 051000/47/11/43/00000155 of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma, then the said objection cannot play major role to deny the claim of the deceased Chitra Vannuramma in respect of the policy in question i.e. 051004/47/11/43/00001031.  In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party against the complainants.  Hence, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards policy amount, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.

27. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards policy claim and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony  and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization within one month from the date of this order.  The complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 3 is dismissed without costs.

            Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 21^st   day of January, 2015.

                            Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                   Sd/-

         MALE MEMBER                              LADY 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:                            ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES

PW1 – Chitra Sivaiah/1^st complainant           RW1 -  Sri G.Krishnaiah S/o G.Ramappa, C.E.O.

                                                                                   PACS, Ananthapuramu.

                                                                      RW2 – Srhi S.Sreem Naik S/o Shri S.Dese Naik,

                                                                                  Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Co.,

                                                                                  Ltd., Divisional Office, Ananthapuramu.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1  - Photo copy of S.B. Account Pass Book relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma

             issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank.

Ex.A2 -Photo copy of Co-Operative Kisan Credit Card-cum- Pass Book relating to

            deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued by Ramagiri Primary Agricultural

            Co-operative Society. 

Ex.A3 -Photo copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.16/12 of Ramagiri P.S.

Ex.A4 -Photo copy of Inquest Report relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.

Ex.A5 -Pphoto copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma.  Ex.A6 -Photo copy of Death Certificate relating to Chitra Vannuramma issued by the

            Panchayat Secretary, Ramagiri Mandal. 

Ex.A7 -Photo copy of Family Members Certificate relating to deceased Chitra

            Vannuramma.

Ex.A8 - Office copy of legal notice dt.22-04-2013 got issued by the 1^st complainant to the

             opposite parties 1 to 3.

Ex.A9 -Courier receipts dt.24-04-2013 for sending notices to opposite parties 2 & 3.  Ex.A10 -Postal receipt dt.25-04-2013 for sending notice to the 1^st opposite party.

 Ex.A11- Postal acknowledgment of the 1^st opposite party.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO..1

Ex.B1 - Photo copy of Shadow Ledger relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma issued

             by the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur.

Ex.B2 - Photo copy of Assumption of charge issued by the 1^st opposite party. 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

Ex.B3  - Photo copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme policy issued by the 2^nd opposite

              party.

Ex.B4 – Original copy of Form of application for intimation of claim given by 1^st

             complainant.

Ex.B5 – Certified copy of Shadow Ledger relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma

              issued by the Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur.

Ex.B6 - Photo copy of Insurance Policy issued by the   2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B7  - Original Letter dt.24-05-2012 sent by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.

              Gate Branch  to the   2^nd opposite party.

 Ex.B8 – Original Letter dt.07-06-2012 submitted by the 1^st complainant to the 2^nd opposite

               party. 

Ex.B9  - Photo copy of letter dt.09-07-2012 sent by the  2^nd opposite party to Andhra

             Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate Branch.

Ex.B10-  Original letter dt.19-07-2012 sent by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,

               N.S. Gate Branch to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B11 –Certified copy of pattadar pass book  relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma. 

Ex.B12 -Certified copy of statement of account relating to deceased Chitra Vannuramma

                issued by Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, N.S.Gate.

 Ex.B13 – Original office note dt.13-03-2013 issued by the 2^nd opposite party relating

               to deceased Chtira Vannuramma.

 Ex.B14 -  Disbursement Voucher dt.19-04-2013 issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

 Ex.B15 -  Attested Photo copy of Ramagiri P.A.C.S. Janatha Insurance Policyholders for

                the year 31-01-2012 to 30-01-2013.

 Ex.B16- Attested Photo copy of receipt dt.09-02-2012 issued by the Anantapur District

               Co-Opposite Party. Central Bank Ltd., Anantapur Branch.

                          Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-

         MALE MEMBER                              LADY MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM     DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM     DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

                ANANTHAPURAMU                         ANANTHAPURAMU                    ANANTHAPURAMU

Typed by JPNN