Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/75

K.Narayan Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, 58 years, Agriculture - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President, Maheshwari Mahila Podupu Sangam, Komireddypally village and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M.Chennaiah Goud

04 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

                                                                                            Monday, the 4^th day of July, 2011 

 

        Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                        Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

    

C.C.NO. 75  Of   2010

 

Between:-

1. K. Narayan Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, aged 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,  R/o Kumireddypally village, Addakal Mandal,                   Mahabubnagar District.

2. Smt. Mamtha W/o Venkat Narsimha Reddy, aged 32 years,  Occ: Household, presently R/o Kumireddypally village, Addakal Mandal,

   Mahabubnagar District.

3. Kandur Anil Kumar Reddy S/o K. Narayan Reddy, aged 29 years,  Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kumireddypally village, Addakal Mandal,  

   Mahabubnagar District.

                                                                                                                                                       … Complainants

 

And

1. The President, Maheshwari Mahila Podupu Sangam, Komireddypally village, Addakal mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The Grama Ikya Sangam, Represented by the Secretary, Chandrakala, Komireddypally village, Addakal mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

3. Adarsha Mahila Samyakya, Moosapet village, Addakal mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

4. The Project Director, D.R.D.A., I.K.P., Collectorate Campus, Mahabubnagar.

5. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

   … Opposite Parties

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 23-6-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainants and Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OPs.1 to 3, Sri P. Bal Reddy, G.P., Mahabubnagar for OPs.4 and 5 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay sum amount of Rs.30,000/- for policy amount along with interest @ 36% p.a. from date of death of the information of the deceased i.e.,15-10-2008 till the realization and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

 

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced life insurance i.e., Janasri Group Insurances Policy for Mahila Groups with assured sum of Rs.30,000/-.  During her life time Smt. K. Manemma the wife of the complainant was a member in Maheshwari Mahila Podupu Sangam at Komireddypally village, Addakal Mandal since 1997. She being also a member in that Janasri Group Insurance paid premium from the date of her joining till 2008.  She paid regular premium through OPs.1 and 2 and also paid monthly savings.  While the matter stood thus, the said Manemma died on 15-10-2008 due to ill health leaving behind her husband (Complainant No.1) and her children Complainant Nos.2 and 3 (who are subsequently added as parties to the present proceedings as per order in I.A.No.256/2010 dated 28-10-2010).  Upon the death of the said Smt. K. Manemma, the Complainant No.1 being her husband approached the OPs.1 and 2 and submitted the required documents for the claim of insurance benefits.  Thereupon the OPs.1 and 2 informed him that they submitted the said documents to the OPs.3 and 4 and the claim will be settled within a month.  The Complainant No.1 having waited for 3 or 4 months again approached the OPs.1 and 2 who in turn repeated the same answer. Then the Complainant No.1 approached the OP-3 who in turn also informed him to wait for some time.  Finally the Complainant No.1 approached the OP-4 on 20-1-2010 and gave representation about his claim.  The OP-4 promised to see that the matter will be settled within 15 days and he will take action against the OPs.1 and 2.  Later the OP-4 without taking any action against OPs.1 and 2 simply sent a notice to him on 22-5-2010 informing him that after making enquiry it was revealed that OPs.1 and 2 not paid premium of the deceased wife and due to that he is not entitled any insurance benefits.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Due to the attitude of the opposite parties the complainants suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.   

 

3. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that in fact the deceased Smt. K. Manemma not paid any premium amount inspite of their intimation and so also not submitted the required documents and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the amount claimed by him, as such there is no deficiency or any unfair trade practice on their part and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

4. The opposite party Nos.4 and 5 having availed sufficient opportunity did not choose to file any counter.    

 

5. Thereupon the Complainant No.1 on his behalf and on behalf of the other two complainants who are no other than his children filed his affidavit evidence in support of his claim and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6.  On the other hand, the OP-2 on his behalf and on behalf of OPs.1 and 3 in support of their contentions filed affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-8.   

 

6.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for by them? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

 

7. The admitted facts of the case are that the deceased Manemma is the wife of the Complainant No.1 and mother of Complainant Nos.2 and 3.  It is also an admitted fact that during her life time she joined as one of the members in Janasri Insurance Group introduced by Government of Andhra Pradesh.  It is also an admitted fact that the said Manemma died on 15-10-2008 due to ill health leaving behind her the Complainant Nos.1 to 3.      

 

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:- As far as the case against OP-5 is concerned a perusal of the entire averments of the complaint clearly goes to show that there is no whisper in the pleadings alleging deficiency against OP-5 and it appears that OP-5 is only made as a formal party to the present proceedings. Therefore the complaint against OP-5 is liable to be dismissed.

 

9. As far as the case against OP-4 is concerned, it is the case of the complainant that when OPs.1 to 3 were not settling the claim as promised by them he finally approached OP-4 on 20-1-2010 and gave representation with regard to settlement of the claim with OPs.1 to 3 and OP-4 also not shown interest in settling the claim.  But at the same time, the complainant at another stage of his complaint clearly admits that OP-4 sent him a notice on 22-5-2010 informing him that after due enquiry it was revealed that OPs.1 and 2 not paid the premium of the deceased wife and therefore he is not entitled for any insurance benefit.  In view of the said admission the complainant cannot allege any deficiency against OP-4.  It is the contention of the complainant that inspite of his giving representation also OP-4 had not taken any action against OPs.1 and 2 which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP-4, but we are unable to agree with the said contention for the reason that if any such action is to be taken in the matter it will be on administrative side to which this Forum is not competent to interfere into such matters. Therefore, for the reason stated above the complaint to the extent of OP-4 is also liable to be dismissed.

 

10. As far as the case against OPs.1 to 3 is concerned, it is the case of the complainant that though the deceased Manemma during her life time regularly paid the premium through OPs.1 and 2 but the claim made by the complainant for the insurance benefits due to the death of his wife Smt. K. Manemma the claim was not settled by OPs.1 and 2 except stating that they have forwarded the claim forms to OP-3 for settlement and such acts on the part of OPs.1 to 3 amounts to deficiency of service.  The contention of OPs.1 to 3 is that the deceased policy holder Smt. K. Manemma during her life time was not provided with Ration Card and also not paid the premium amount of Rs.168/- and hence the deceased was not provided Group Insurance facility and therefore the complainant is not entitled for such insurance benefits.  The said part of contention is also clearly corroborated by Exs.B-7 and B-8 copies of the Meeting Resolutions dated 4-10-2008 and 9-5-2010. The complainant, except taking a plea that the deceased Manemma during her life time regularly paid the premium, did not produce any proof in that regard.  Further, the complainant also not produced any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the affidavit evidence of OPs.1 to 3 in that regard. Hence, in view of the clear and categorical counter and the affidavit evidence of OPs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.B-1 to B-8, we find that the documents Exs.A-1 to A-6 relied upon by the complainant itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that inspite of making the premium amount OPs.1 to 3 failed to settle the claim in question made by the complainant.  Therefore, in the absence of any such proof produced by the complainant in that regard rebutting the oral and documentary evidence produced by OPs.1 to 3, we find that the complainant failed to establish the alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.1 to 3.   Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant failed to establish the alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.1 to 3, as such the complainants are not entitled for the relief sought for by them and thus the complaint even to the extent of OPs.1 to 3 is also liable to be dismissed.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainants.              

 

11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.  

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of July, 2011.    

 

                                                                                                 I agree                                                         

 MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT                            

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainants:                         On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -

           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainants:-    

                        Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Death Certificate, dt.4.11.2008.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Pass Book.

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.27.4.2010.

Ex.A-4: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.7.5.2010.

Ex.A-5: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.22.5.2010.

Ex.A-6: Photostat copy of Letter.

On behalf of OPs.:                  

                       Ex.B-1: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.22.5.2008.

Ex.B-2: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.22.6.2008.

Ex.B-3: Attested copy of Form No.1 & 2.

Ex.B-4: Attested copy of Letter, dt.30.1.2010.

Ex.B-5: Attested copy of Letter.

Ex.B-6: Attested copy of List of Policies.

                        Ex.B-7: Copy of Meeting Resolution.  

                        Ex.B-8: Copy of Meeting Resolution. 

 

                                                                  

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainants.

2. Sri G. Ravi Prakash, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OPs.1 to 3.

3. Sri P. Bal Reddy, G.P., Mahabubnagar for OPs.4 and 5.