Date of Filing: 02.04.2012
Date of Disposal: 07.06.2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 07th day of June, 2013
C.C.No.14/2012
Between:
G.Sivamma,
W/o Late G.Peddanna,
Venkatampalli Village,
Tadipatri Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. Post Master,
Yadiki Post Office,
Yadiki.
2. Postal Superintendent,
Superintendent of Post Office,
Guntakal.
3. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Anantapur. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri S.B.Subbaiah, Advocate for the complainant and Sri T.Bharath Bhushana Reddy Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and Sri D. Rajasekhar Goud, Advocate for the 3rd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt. M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount, Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and for mental agony and cots of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is the permanent resident of Vankatampalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal. The deceased G.Peddanna was daily wages labour and the deceased died due to met with motor accident. The complainant and the deceased had open account with the 1st opposite party under National Employment Scheme account bearing No.190757. The 2nd opposite party is the supervises the same. In this connection, the opposite parties 1 & 2 provide insurance policy scheme with the 3rd opposite party. In this connection also the opposite parties 1 & 2 deduct the premium towards accidental Group Insurance Scheme. The husband of the complainant joined in the above said scheme on 07.06.2010 and he died on 14.06.2010 in a motor accident. The complainant gave a complaint to the Tadipatri P.S. and the same was registered the case under section 304(a) IPC in Crime No.89/2010. The complainant submit that she made several demands towards compensation amount with the opposite parties but they have not settle the same and post phoned on one protest or other. At last the complainant has issued legal notice on 07.12.2011 to the opposite parties, but the 2nd opposite party gave a reply stating that the insurance was commenced on 07.06.2010 but it was commenced on 21.06.2010. Where as in the pass book issued by the opposite parties 1 & 2 it clearly shows that the policy will cover from 07.06.2010 to 06.06.2011 it clearly shows that the negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Though they have collected premium from the deceased and the 3rd opposite party received the premium amount from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Now they are try to escape to pay the amount to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount and grand cost and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. The 1st opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
4. The complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complaint is put to strict proof of the same all the allegations containing in the complaint. The allegation that the deceased G.Peddanna of Venkatampalli Village, Tadipatri Mandal has credited Rs.15/- on 07.06.2010 towards annual premium to cover accidental death under personal accident death scheme is true. The deceased had nominated the complainant as nominee to the policy. The complainant preferred a complaint stating that her husband died on 14.06.2010 and immediately sent all the claim forms to the insurer i.e., 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party sent a letter dt.02.11.2010 informing that the claim cannot be considered since the death of the insured occurred prior to the acceptance of the policy and the same was informed to the complainant. This opposite party submits that para 11 of operating procedure envisaged in Ministry of Communication letter dt.23.12.2005, the 3rd opposite party will handle any complaint or issues arising out of the policy, directly with the customer and this should be specified clearly in the acceptance form printed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to be supplied to the Head Post Office. The role of this opposite party remains limited to circulating acceptance forms and handing over acceptance form received from post office savings bank account holders to the 3rd opposite party along with consolidate list and cheque for the total sum. As per the law the 3rd opposite party is liable to pay the amount and this opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite parties 1 & 2.
5. The counsel for the 3rd opposite party filed counter and stating that the allegations made in the complaint are false and invented for the purpose of filing this unjust complaint. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case is deserves to be dismissed. The 3rd opposite party submits that the 3rd opposite party has not received any premium from the opposite parties 1 & 2 to cover the risk of the deceased G.Peddanna and issued any type of policy in favour of the deceased and the 3rd opposite party puts the complainant to strict proof that if any policy issued by the 3rd opposite party in favour of the deceased G.Peddanna with risk will cover only from the date of issuing the policy. The 3rd opposite party submits that the complaint will not come under consumer relationship with the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party denies the relationship of the deceased with the complainant as there was no documentary evidence and the 3rd opposite party rightly repudiated the claim is just and reasonable as per rules and regulations if any policy issued by the 3rd opposite party. There was no demand from the complainant at any time and the complaint is not maintainable against this opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3?
ii) To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed his evidence on affidavit and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2. The 3rd opposite party filed the evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 on behalf of the 3rd opposite party.
8. POINT: - The counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not advanced their arguments, the 3rd opposite party argued that the policy is not in force on the date of death of the deceased G.Peddanna. Hence, there is no liability on the part of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has not received any premium from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the party of the 3rd opposite party. Basing on the counter and evidence on affidavit filed by the both parties we are taking into consideration the same. The complainant is the wife of the deceased G.Peddanna who died in an accident on 14.06.2010. The deceased G.Peddanna has open account with the opposite parties 1 & 2 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 deduct the premium from the deceased account. After the death of the deceased the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 to settle the claim. But the 2nd opposite party gave a reply stating that the policy was not in force by the date of death of the deceased. The policy will commence from 21.06.2010. Hence, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of the complaint. The opposite parties 1 & 2 admitted in counter that the deceased G.Peddanna was having savings bank account and they have deducted a sum of Rs.15/- towards premium and the complainant is the nominee for the same and the above said G.Peddanna died on 14.06.2010. In the counter the 2nd opposite party mentioned that para No.11 of operating procedure envisaged in Ministry of Communication letter dt.23.12.2005, the 3rd opposite party will handle any complaint /issues arising out of the policy, directly with the customer and the same was printed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in the acceptance form supplied to the Head Post Office. Hence, the role of the opposite parties 1 & 2 remains limited to circulating acceptance forms and handing over acceptance forms received from post office savings bank account holders to the 3rd opposite party along with consolidated list and cheque and their total sum and the 3rd opposite party is liable to pay the amount. The 3rd opposite party argued that the policy was not in force on the death of the deceased G.Peddanna and the 3rd opposite party has not issued any policy in favour of the deceased G.Peddanna and there is no relationship between the complainant and the 3rd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party rightly repudiate the claim as per the rules and regulations, hence there is no deficiency of service on the party of the 3rd opposite party.
9. As per Ex.A1 i.e., pass book issued by the 1st opposite party in favour of the deceased G.Peddanna on 08.03.2010 in the above said pass book there a seal under the photo that this account is covered by Oriental Accidental Group Insurance Scheme from 07.06.2010 to 06.06.2011. As per the counter and chief affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the deceased G.Peddanna was their account holder and they have deducted the premium Rs.15/- on 07.06.2010 towards annual premium to cover under accidental death. The opposite parties 1 & 2 also admitted that the complainant is the nominee and they admitted that the deceased G.Peddanna died in a road accident on 14.06.2010 and there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. As per the counsel for the 3rd opposite party filed Ex.B1 document in that document it mentioned that if any claim made with insurance they have to submit all the records i.e., FIR, Postmortem certificate and Death Certificate. As per the complaint the complainant filed Ex.A2 to A4 are criminal records pertaining to the deceased. As per the complaint as well as in the counter immediate to the death of the deceased the complainant submitted his claim forms to the 3rd opposite party as required under Ex.B1 to claim the accidental benefits. The crucial point in the present case is that whether the policy was in force on the date of death of the deceased G.Peddanna. As per Ex.A1 the policy commenced from 07.06.2010 and it will be in force till 06.06.2011. Admittedly the death was occurred on 14.06.2010. As per the counter and chief affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 the duty of the opposite parties 1 & 2 will close immediately after submitting of the premiums to the insurance company i.e., 3rd opposite party. As per para No.11 of operating procedure envisaged in Ministry of Communication letter dt.23.12.2005 and the opposite parties 1 & 2 mentioned that after acceptance of premium by the 3rd opposite party the role of the opposite parties 1 & 2 will close and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are concern they have paid the premium to the 3rd opposite party where as the 3rd opposite party stated that they have not received any premium form the opposite parties 1 & 2 and they have not issued any policy in favour of the deceased G.Peddanna. It is an admitted fact that it is a Group Insurance Policy and the opposite parties 1 & 2 deducted the premium from the deceased account on 07.06.2010 itself. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are throughing their liability against each other basing on Ex.B1. The opposite parties contended that there is no separate policy will be issued to the individuals and it is a Group Insurance Policy and one policy issued by names mentioned and all the details of the account holders. The counsel for the 3rd opposite party argued that as per Ex.B1 unless the 3rd opposite party received any premium the policy shall not be attached prior to the receipt of premium and the liability will commence only after receipt of premium. The counsel also submitted that there was no record either from the complainant or from the opposite parties 1 & 2 that they have paid premium to the 3rd opposite party. Admittedly the 3rd opposite party has not denied the allegations made by the opposite parties 1 & 2 as per the Ministry of Communication letter the role of the opposite parties will be seized after acceptance of forms and handing over acceptance forms received from post office savings bank account holders to the 3rd opposite party along with consolidated list and cheque for the total sum. The versions of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that as per procedure Minister communications dt.23.12.2005 the role of the opposite parties 1 &2 will end after furnishing the list of account holders and premiums cheque for the same there was no denial by the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party repudiated the claim under Ex.A7 stating that the period of insurance was commenced on 21.06.2010 but not as alleged in Ex.A1 i.e., 07.06.2010. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have to explain from which date they have paid the premiums to the 3rd opposite party along with the account holders list. But the opposite parties 1 & 2 have not come forwarded to advance their arguments. The opposite parties 1 & 2 throughing their liability by saying that their role will be end only after furnishing the list of the account holders along with premium cheque. But in counter and chief affidavit it is totally silent when they have paid premium to the 3rd opposite party, and in counter they have simply accepted that the deceased is having account with them and they have deducted the premium towards accidental death benefit. For the acts of the opposite parties 1 to 3 the complainant should not be suffered. The 3rd opposite party stated that they have not received any premium from the opposite parties 1 & 2, as on the date of death of the deceased. As per Ex.A7 i.e., repudiation letter it was mentioned that the said premium was accounted for into post office account at Guntakal Head Post Office i.e., the 2nd opposite party on 11.06.2010 ad per account procedure and the post master Guntakal Head Office issued a cheque on 11.06.2010 for the consolidated schedules received from all post offices in Guntakal Head Post Office and the same was forwarded to the Oriental Insurance authorities and the policy will came into effect on 21.06.2010. By observing Ex.A7 we notice that the 2nd opposite party has accounted the premiums on 11.06.2010 itself. As per Ex.A1 pass book and the counter of the 2nd opposite party they have deducted the premiums. On 07.06.2010 itself the 2nd opposite party immediately sent the premium to the 3rd opposite party the policy will be commenced immediate to receive of premiums. As the 2nd opposite party has received the premium earlier to 11.06.2010 itself for the act of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant should not suffer. For the reasons that they have deducted the premium on 07.06.2010 they have sent the premiums belatedly to the 3rd opposite party for this also there was no explanation from the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence its says clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Though the opposite parties 1 & 2 sent the premium to the 3rd opposite party immediately knowing the fact that the policy will commence only after receipt of premiums by the 3rd opposite party and the policy will commence only after receipt of the premiums. There was no proof that the premium were sent to 3rd opposite party immediately after deducting of premium from the account holders. The 3rd opposite party alleged that there is no policy on the date of death of the deceased. It is the duty of the 2nd opposite party who is responsible to send the premiums immediately to the 3rd opposite party, they have sent it belatedly. Hence we are of view that as per Ex.A1 the policy will commence on 07.06.2010 and policy was in force on the date of death of the deceased G.Peddanna i.e., 14.06.2010 and the 3rd opposite party might have issued the policy immediately after receipt of premium. As the opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to file policy. The 3rd opposite party also issued policy to the opposite parties 1& 2 belatedly. Hence there is clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and they are liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 to 3.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization and the amount shall be paid within one month. In the circumstances no costs was granted.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 07th day of June, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Original Savings Bank Account pass book issued by 1st opposite party in favour
of the deceased G.Peddanna.
Ex.A2Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.89/2010 of Tadipatri Rural Police.
Ex.A3Attested copy of Postmortem certificate relating to the deceased G.Peddanna.
Ex.A4 Attested copy of Inquest report relating to the deceased G.Peddanna.
Ex.A5 Office copy of legal notice dt.07.12.2011 got issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A6Postl acknowledgement singed by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A7 Letter issued by superintendent of post offices, Anantapur to the counsel for
the complainant.
Ex.A8 Office copy of legal notice dt.15.12.2011 got issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A9 attested copy of final report issued by Sub-Inspector of Police Tadipatri Taluk
P.S.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 3rd OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Attested copy of terms and conditions of insurance policy issued by the oriental
insurance company limited, Kurnool.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
