This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 16-09-11 in the presence of Sri P. Syam Kumar, advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte,                            Sri V. Nageswara Rao, advocate for 3^rd 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 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest @24% p.a., from the date of the death of the deceased, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.

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

        One Manchikalapudi Abbeswara Rao @ Abbaiah husband of the complainant is a member of the opposite parties 1 and 2.   The complainant came to know that she is entitled to claim the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under Janatha Group Personal Accident policy as her husband was a member of the opposite parties 1 and 2.   The husband of the complainant on 06-07-04 died due to snake bite as he slept in cattle shed.   The complainant informed the death of her husband to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the assured amount.   The complainant furnished necessary certificates i.e., death certificate, legal heir certificate and family member certificate to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to claim the assured amount from the opposite parties 2 and 3.   The complainant is the nominee of the deceased under the said policy and as such is entitled for the amount on the death of her husband.   Inspite of long lapse of time 3^rd opposite party did not settle the claim.   The claim therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is hereunder:

        The complainant is a member of opposite parties 1 and 2.   The complainant’s husband died on 06-07-04 due to snake bite while sleeping in cattle shed.   The assured amount was Rs.1,00,000/-under Janatha Group Personal Accident policy.   The 3rd opposite party appointed  an investigator to enquire into the cause of death of the husband of the complainant.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted the claim forms duly singed by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 discharged their obligation.

4.  The contention of the 3^rd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

The assured amount is only Rs.50,000/-.   The 3^rd opposite party on 18-05-05 required the 1^st opposite party to clarify about the moles and submit the certificate from the concerned authorities for taking action.   But the complainant kept quite without furnishing any clarification and filed this complaint with a petition to condone the delay.   The complaint was barred by limitation.   There was no deficiency of service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party as the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not submit the required documents.  Since more than 6 years elapsed the 3^rd opposite party could not trace out the relevant file after receiving the death claim intimation.   The 3^rd opposite party registered the claim and the said copy of claim revealed that the assured sum was Rs.50,000/- only.   The insured died leaving not only behind the complaint but also son and daughter.   The complaint is bad for non-joinder of son and daughter of the complainant.  Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-4 on behalf of 3^rd opposite party were marked.    

6.    Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
4. To what relief?

7.   POINT No.1:-    Ex.A-8 is the proper person certificate issued by MRO, Amaravathi on 30-03-05.   Ex.A-8 revealed that M. Abbeswara Rao @ Abbaiah died leaving behind him the complainant and a son Kishore and a daughter Udaya Lakshmi.  The complainant did not chose to file the complaint along with her son and daughter contending that she was a nominee.   The policy covered is group policy.  If the complainant is otherwise entitled to claim the insurance policy, the complaint cannot be dismissed.   We are of the opinion that it cannot be dismissed on this ground.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.

8.   POINT No.2:-     Ex.A-4 is the letter addressed by the 3^rd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party marking a copy to the complainant.   For better appreciation Ex.A-4 dated 18-05-05 is extracted below:

                “On verification of the records submitted by you we observed that the identification marks of the deceased person are stated in column No.7 of post mortem as 1) A mole on left shoulder on front side and 2) ABM on middle part of Rt. thigh on lateral side.   Where also in case dairy part-I and inquest report stated as one mole on the right shoulder and another is above the groin found.  

                Please clarify us whether the mole is on left shoulder or right shoulder and submitting certificate from concerned authorities (police department or medical department) for our further action”.

9.     Ex.A-4 revealed that there was discrepancy regarding description of moles in Col.No.7 of post mortem report and in                                  Part I CD and inquest report.   Ex.A-7 dated 15-12-05 is the letter addressed by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant requiring her to clarify the doubts raised by the 3rd opposite party.    It is the contention of the 3^rd opposite party that it closed the matter either the complainant or the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not respond.

10.   The complainant along with this complaint   filed IA 105 of 2008 to condone the delay of 343 days in presenting complaint.   It can therefore be inferred that the complaint is not at all diligent in answering the queries raised by the 3^rd opposite party.   No doubt the clarification sought by the 3^rd opposite party under Ex.A-4 is flimsy.   The inquest report revealed that husband of the complainant died due to snake bite.   The 3^rd opposite party cannot escape its liability by addressing Ex.A-4 letter and want of response to it.   Under those circumstances we hold that the opposite party committed deficiency of service.

11.   Neither of the parties filed copy of policy.   According to the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 the assured amount was Rs.1,00,000/-.   At this stage it is quite apt to mention that the policy in question was not an individual policy but a group policy.   On what basis the opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the assured amount was Rs.1,00,000/- is a myth.   The opposite party relied on Ex.B-2 to B-4.   The complaint as well as the version of the opposite parties                1 and 2 is silent regarding policy number. The policy bearing No.150800/47/01/43/00001115 covered 229963 KCC holders of the GDCC bank, Guntur for Rs.11,44,81,50,000/-.   Under Exs.B-2 and B-3 the 3^rd opposite party settled the claim relating to the death of one Doddaka Venkateswarlu S/o Kotaiah prior to filing this consumer complaint for Rs.50,000/-.  It is not the case of the opposite parties                 1 and 2 that the claim settled under Ex.B-3 and B-4 did not relate to the policy in question.   When the assured amount and the KCC holders of GDCC bank, Guntur as mentioned in Ex.B-2 is taken into consideration the assured amount for each KCC holder comes to Rs.50,000/-.   Except this document no other document is available before this Forum.   Reliance can be placed on Ex.B-2 to B-4 as they were issued prior to filing of this complaint.   Therefore we hold that the assured amount is Rs.50,000/- only.

12.   This Forum in IA 105/08 held that the complainant is not entitled to interest from 06-07-04 to 11-06-08.   The order passed in IA 105 of 2008 dated 26-02-11 became final.   The complaint is therefore entitled to interest from 11-06-08 onwards.    For the discussion made supra we answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant.

13.   POINT No.3:-   For Ex.A-7 notice the complainant did not reply.   Thus there was considerable delay on behalf of complainant itself.   The complainant contributed her part to get the claim settled early.   Under those circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

14.  POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) together with interest @9% p.a., from 12-06-08 till realisation.
2.  The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.
3. The complainant is directed to file affidavits of her son and daughter at the time of withdrawing the amount.
4. Claim against opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed.      

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 20^th day of              September, 2011.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 3rd opposite party:   

 PRESIDENT