BEFORE THE DISTRICT FOUM: 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
Monday the 29th day of August, 2005
C.D NO.129/2003
Smt K.Parvathamma,
W/o. Late K.Eswarappa,
R/o. Narayanapuram (V),
Adoni (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Secretary,
Basapuram Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Society ltd,
Basapuram, Adoni (M),
Kurnool Dist.
2. The Manager,
The Kurnool District Co-operative
Central bank Ltd.,
Near Collector rate Office,
Kurnool.
3. The Divisional Manager,
M/s the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 27.08.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri M.L.Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant, Sri J.P.Basava Raj, Advocate for opposite party No.1, Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and Sri D.Srinivasulu, Advocate for opposite party No.3 and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
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 to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest per annum from 10.8.2001, Rs.15,000/- as damages for mental agony and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is an illiterate woman and wife of Late K. Easwarappa, who was member of opposite party No.1 society, which is affiliated to opposite party No.2 Bank. The opposite party No.1 collected required premium from its members and paid to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2 to cover risk of its members including the complainant’s husband for Rs.1,00,000/- and opposite party No.3 issued a Group Insurance Policy. On 10.8.2001 the complainant’s husband died in a road accident near Danapuram (V) within the limits of Isvi, police station. The complainant as wife of the deceased within few days of the accident submitted all required documents such as FIR, inquest report, etc along with claim form to opposite party No.1 inturn to send it to opposite party No.3 for policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the opposite party No.3 deputed an Advocate investigator by name Hulthenna to investigate the case. The complainant also submitted death certificate and Post-mortem certificate to opposite party No.1, but till now the complainant’s claim is not settled by opposite parties inspite of several personal approaches. Later on 7.2.2003 the complainant got issued Lawyers notice to opposite parties and opposite parties 1 and 3 replied admitting the death of complainant’s husband but denied their liability on the ground that the complainant did not submit claim form and other documents to opposite parties. As requested in the reply letter of opposite party No.3 the complainant once again submitted claim form and documents to the opposite party No.1 in turn to send them to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2. Even after receipt of said documents the opposite party No.3 did not settle the claim of the complainant, hence, there arises deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) office copy of Lawyers notice dt 7.2.2003 of complainant’s counsel to opposite parties (2) reply by opposite party No.1 dated 17.2.2003 and (3) reply by opposite party No.3 dated 19.2.2003, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 was made exparte and remained absent through out the case proceedings. The opposite party No.2 and 3 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version as defence.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 denies the complaint as unjust and not maintainable in Law. But, it admits the complainant’s husband was a member of opposite party No.1 society and was covered under the policy issued by opposite party No.3 and the complainant’s husband died in an accident on 10.8.2001. Inspite of submitting material documents the opposite party No.3 did not settle the complainant’s claim. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service against opposite party No.2 and hence it is for opposite party NO.3 who has to pay insurance amount to the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No.2.
6. The written version of opposite party No.3 denies the complaint as unjust and not maintainable in law or on facts and denies the complaint allegations except those which are specifically admitted. It submits that they received telegram dt 13.8.2001 intimating the death of complainant’s husband K. Easwarappa. S/o.Nagappa, on 10.8.2001 from opposite party No.1. Immediately, claim form was sent to opposite party No.1 and simultaneously, deputed an Advocate to investigate the claim. The opposite party No.1 did not submit claim form along with necessary documents to opposite party No.3 within stipulated time, therefore opposite party No.3 addressed a letter dt 1.2.2002 to opposite party No.1 reminding them to send claim form and documents, again there was no response from opposite party No.1, and another letter dt 15.3.2002 was addressed to opposite party No.1 reminding them again to send claim form and documents. The opposite party No.3 in the above letters made it clear that on failure to comply with the said requirements claim will be treated as “No claim”. As there was no response and as the financial year was coming decision to close the claim was taken on 28.3.2003, after giving sufficient time to the complainant for compliance. In reply to the lawyers notice of the complainant the opposite party No.3 positively and fairly advised the complainant to submit the necessary documents with a letter of request to revoke the claim. Even to the said letter there was no response from the complainant and there was no letter of request from the complainant to send the same to the controlling office for revocation of said claim. As the claim received by opposite party No.3 after a lapse of more than 30 days, the claim could not be entertained and there is no compliance to the letter dt 19.7.2003, hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.3, hence , seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In support of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents, Viz (1) office note of opposite party No.3 dated 28.3.2002, (2) office copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1 dated 15.3.2002, (3) office copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1 dated 1.2.2002 (4) letter dt 20.3.2002 of opposite party No.1 addressed to the complainant and (5) letter dated 27.3.2003 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.1, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 and 3 and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.5 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite parties:-
9. There is no dispute that the complainant’s husband late K. Easwarappa was a member of opposite party No.1 society and opposite party No.1 collected required premium from its members including the complainant’s husband and paid to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 issued a policy covering the risk of opposite party No.1 members. There is no dispute as to the death of complainants husband Late K.Eashwarappa in a road accident on 10.8.2001.
10. The complainant alleges that she forward claim form to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 and she is entitled to receive insured amount of the deceased K.Eashwarappa. But as against to it the opposite party No.3 in its written version averments denies of receipt of any claim form of the complainant, even after addressing remainder letters vide Ex B.1 and B.2 dt 1.2.2002 and 15.3.2002 to the opposite party No.1, requesting to submit FIR, Police Panchanama, Post mortem report, Govt. Doctor certificate, Village Surpanch Certificate, Medical Certificate etc., as there was no response to the said letters, the opposite party No.3 was constrained to close the claim as “No claim” on 28.2.2003. The complainant except alleging submitting of claim form along with documents only did not place any documentary record or any other material in support of her contention. In the absence of any material supporting the complainants contentions it is very hard to believe that the complainant did submitted claim form along with documents. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant forwarded claim form along with documents to opposite party No.3 to hold its liability.
11. The other allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No.3 in its reply letter dt 19.2.2003 in Ex A.3 requested the complainant to submit claim form and documents, thereafter, the complainant submitted the said requirements to the opposite party No.1 in turn to send it to opposite party No.3. But the opposite party No.3 in its written version averments alleges that it has received claim form only from opposite party No.1 on 8.4.2003, it also further alleges that as per their letter in Ex A.3 the complainant was requested to submit a letter of request to revoke the claim with necessary requirements in order to forward it to controlling office for revocation, but there was no compliance to this request. Hence, in the absence of request letter and other relevant material the opposite party No.3 could not settle the claim of the complainant. Therefore there appears no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.3 in not setting the complainant’s claim.
12. Further, the fact to furnishing a letter of request for revocation of claim was made by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant and the complainant has not even placed any such circumstances as to the submitting of letter of request and required documents to opposite party No.3, hence, there remains hardly any material to believe the deficiency of service on part opposite party No.3 in not paying insured amount to the complainant.
13. Therefore, in the above circumstances as their being any element of deficiency of service nor there being any entitleness to the complainant from the opposite party No3 for the said amount, the case of the complainant remained devoid of merit and force and there by any of her entitleness to the reliefs sought. Consequently, the complainant case is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Type to dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 29th day of August, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:-Nil For the opposite parties:-Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex A.1 Office copy of Lawyers notice dated 7.2.2003 of complainant’s counsel to opposite Parties.
Ex A.2 Reply by opposite party No.1 dated 17.2.2003.
Ex A.3 Reply by opposite party No.3 dated 19.2.2003.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:
Ex B.1 Office notice of opposite party No.3 dated 28.3.2002.
Ex B.2 Office copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1 dated 15.03.2002.
Ex B.3 Office copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1 dated 1.2.2002.
Ex B.4 Letter dated 20.03.2002 of opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex B.5 Letter dated 27.3.2003 of complainant addressed to opposite party No.1.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for the complainant.
2. Sri J.P.Basava Raj, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.1.
3. Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.2.
4. Sri D. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party No.3.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
