Before the District CONSUMERS Forum: Kurnool
Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of July, 2004
C.D. No.177/2003
Smt B.E.Savithramma,
W/o. Late B.E.Ramappa,
Chinna Poojarla Village,
Peapully Mandal,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri P. Bhaskar Reddy.
-Vs-
1. The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited,
Represented by its Secretary,
Peapully Village,
Peapully. . . . Opposite party
2. The Kurnool District Co-operative Central Bank Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Krishnanagar. . . . Opposite party
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited.,
Represented by its Divisional Manager,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.3 represented by
his Counsel Sri D.Srinivasulu
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of death, Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint and compensation and pass any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant of the complainant are that the complainant is the widow of the deceased B.E.Ramappa, who was the member of opposite party No.1, which is affiliated to opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1&2 collected from the members of opposite party No.1, premium and paid to opposite party No.3, covering the risk of the members of opposite party No.1, under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy of opposite party No.3. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, if any member dies accidentally opposite party No.3 has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the nominee of the deceased-member. On 15.11.2001 the deceased B.E Ramanappa went to attend nature call near the tank in Chinna Poojarla (V) and died drowning in the water of the tank. The complainant being the nominee approached opposite party No.1 and submitted relevant documents to forward her claim to opposite party No.3. The claim of the complainant was not forwarded by opposite party No.1 & 2 as opposite party No.1 was under suspension and that fact was not intimated to complainant in time and opposite party No.3 closed the file as no claim. The conduct of opposite parties in not settling the claim of complainant is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. In substantiation of its case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) T/C of FIR No. 77/2001 dt 16.11.2001 of Peapully police station (2) T/C inquest report (3) T/C of post mortem report dt 16.11.2001 (4) Xerox copy of claim form (5) letter dt Nil addressed by the complainant to opposite party No.3 (6) legal notice dt 27.8.2003 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party No.3 (7) proceeding dt 9.11.2002 of the President –in-charge/President PACS Peapully and (8) joining report attested copy of dt 1.11.2002 of secretary, PACS Peapully the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.8 for its appreciation in this case besides to her sworn affidavit in re-iteration of her complaint averments and three 3rd party sworn-affidavit and the 3rd parties suitably reported to the interrogatories filed by opposite party No.3.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 and 2 remained absent through out the case proceedings and were made exparte and opposite party No.3 made its appearance through its standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party No.3 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts besides questioning its justness. It admits the receipt of telegram from opposite party No.1 regarding the death of B.E.Ramanappa and the claim form along with letter dt 21.11.2001 was sent to opposite party No.1, informing to fill the form and send it along with necessary documents to opposite party No.3, but the opposite party No.1 did not send the claim form along with documents as mentioned therein. The opposite party No.3 addressed a remainder letter dt 15.3.2002 to opposite party No.1 requesting to send claim form and documents by 26.3.2002 and further informing that claim will be treated as closed, if the claim form and documents are not submitted to it with prescribed date. As is no response from opposite party No.1 to the letters addressed by opposite party No.3, the claim was closed as no claim on 28.3.2002. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.3 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiating its case the opposite party No.3 filed the following documents Viz (1) Telegram informing the death of B.E.Ramanappa of Chinna Podilla (V), Peapully (M) to opposite party No.3 (2) Office copy of letter dt.21.11.2002 addressed by the opposite party No.3 to 1(3) Office copy of letter dt15.3.2002 and (4) Office Note dt.28.3.2002, besides to its sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its written version as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex.B.1 to B.4 for its appreciation in this case and suitably answered to the interrogatories filed by the Complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on the part of the Opposite Parties?:-
8. There is no dispute that the complainants husband B.E.Ramanappa was the Member of the O.P.No.1. There is no dispute that the deceased B.E.Ramanappa insured his life with the O.P.No.3 through the O.P.No.1.
9. The complainant alleges that she forwarded claim form to the O.P.No.3 through the O.P.No.1 and she is entitled to receive the insured amount of the deceased B.E.Ramanappa . But the O.P.No.3 in its written version denies of receipt of any claim form of the complainant, even after addressing remainder letter vide Ex.B.2 and B.3 to opposite party No.1 and they closed the claim as no claim on 28.3.2002. There is nothing on record to hold liability on opposite party No.3, hence the case against opposite party No.3 is dismissed for want of merit and force.
10. The complainant further submitted the claim form along with documents could not submitted to opposite party No.3 in time by opposite party No.1, as the opposite party No.1 was under suspension. There fore, it is clear that claim form along with were not forwarded to opposite party No.3. The claim form along with documents has been submitted to opposite party No.1 by the complainant, i.e Ex A.4 Xerox copy of claim form. But to the dismay of the complainant the claim is not submitted to opposite party No.3 by opposite party No.1 and 2, the reason placed by the complainant is that opposite party No.1 was under suspension as per Ex A.7 and A.8. The suspension of opposite party No.1 cannot be taken as an excuse for not forwarding the claim of the complainant, when it has been submitted by the complainant, which is untenable and cannot be accepted. It is the duty of the office of opposite party No.1 to forward it to opposite party No.3. There appears laches on part of opposite party No.1 & 2 for not forwarding the valid claim of the complainant to opposite party No.3 and merely taking shelter under suspension of opposite party No.1 is not a good defence and cannot be looked into nor it can inspire any confidence.
11. The contentions of the complaint are not rebutted by opposite party No.1 &2 by making their appearance or by filling its written version or by denying the averments made in the complaint and there by remaining continuously absent to the case proceedings, hence the above contentions were neither misguided nor challenged. Hence the said contentions are worthy of acceptance and the opposite party No.1&2 by their doscile conduct did not forward the valid claim of the complainant, which the complainant is remaining entitled, as per the documents marked Ex.A.1 to A.8, filed by the complainant to substantiate her case, hence the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot escapes from its liability to make good of the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of instant case.
12. To sum up of the above discussions, having regard to over all consideration, there is no hesitation in holding opposite parties 1&2 miserable failed in forwarding the claim of the complainant to opposite party No.3 in time by their lapsive negligent and lethargic attitude. Therefore, in these circumstances the opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to make good the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and as no cause of action was made against opposite party No.3 and the complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1&2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of demise of the deceased till realization along with Rs.5,000/- as costs of this complaint, within one month from the date of receipt of this order and complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of July, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nill For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 True copy of FIR No.77/2001 dated 16-11-2001 of Peapully Police Station.
Ex.A2 Inquest report.
Ex.A3 True copy of Postmortem Report dated 16-11-2001.
Ex.A4 Xerox copy of Claim Form.
Ex.A5 Letter dated nil addressed by the complainant to Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Ex.A6 Legal Notice dated 27-08-2003 issued by Oriental Insurance Company Limited by complainant counsel.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Telegram given by B.E.Ramappa of Chinna Poojarla Village, Peapully to opposite party No.3.
Ex.B2 Office copy of letter dated 21-11-2002 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.B3 Office copy of letter dated 15-03-2002 addressed by opposite party No.3 to opposite party No.1.
Ex.B4 Office Note dated 28-03-2002.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
