This C.D. coming on before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the complainant and in the presence of Sri Potla Madhava Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and in the presence of Sri
K. Rama Rao, Advocate for the Opposite party No.3: upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the wife, and the complainants No.2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Veerabhadram. The deceased Veerabhadram was an agriculturist and also a … Contd2
-2-
member of P.A.C.S.Raghunadhapalem, who is the opposite party No.1 The opposite party No-3 issued J.P.A.Policy to the persons who obtained loan from P.A.C.S., after inspiring the vide publicity of the opposite parties No-1 to 3 the loan of the deceased Veerabhadram was renewed on 14-4-2001 and availed loan vide loan No.5/2 dated 14-4-2001 and after that the opposite party No-3 issued J.P.A.Policy. in favour of the deceased Veerabhadram for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- Unfortunately the deceased Veerabhadram was fallen down from the Neem tree while cutting the said Neem tree on 30-10-2001 and received fractures to his both legs and other multiple injuries all over his body, he was shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam, due to that injuries the deceased succumbed while undergoing the treatment on 5-11-2001 after the death of the deceased the complainants claimed the amount due under the Janatha Personal Accident Policy, submitted all necessary documents to the opposite party No-3, and the opposite party No-3 issued a letter to the opposite party No-1 on 8-10-2003, stated that the claim of the complainants was not covered under J.P.A.Policy and the same was rejected, and the opposite parties postponing the matter and did not settle the claim of the complainants, approached the Forum for redressal by claiming the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest 24% per annum from the date of death of the diseased till realization and costs.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant No-1 filed xerox copies of 1) Final Report of S.I.Of Police, Khanapur (H)P.S.,dated 28-2-02 2) Letter dated 8-10-03 issued by the opposite party No-3 to the opposite party No-1 3) Death Certificate of the diseased, dated 23-1-2002 4) Family Members Certificate issued by the M.R.O.Khammam (U) dated 30-4-2002.
4. The complainant No-1 filed affidavit.
C ontd…3
-3-
5. After receipt of notices from the Forum the opposite parties made appearance through their counsels and filed counters.
6. The opposite parties No-1&2 mentioned in their counter the deceased Veerabhadram was a member of the Co-operative Society and the Opposite Party no-3 issued J.P.A.Policy in favour of the deceased Veerabhadram who is a loanee, and the opposite party No-3 has to answer the claim of the complainants and further as a member of their society the deceased paid the premium to them and in turn the same was remitted to the Opposite Party No-3 by the opposite party No-2 and they are no way concerned with the claim and prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
7. The opposite party No-3 mainly disputed the death of the deceased and they contended that the deceased died due to septicemia due to negligence of the deceased and further they contented that the deceased Veerabhadram receives fractures on his both legs and other injuries all over the body, while he was cutting the Neem tree, further they contended that the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam immediately after the accident, and he was succumbed due to the said injuries on 5-11-2001 and the deceased died due to his own negligence and he went to the home against the advise of attending doctors and due to lack of proper treatment and as such they are not liable to pay the claim amount and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. Along with the counter the opposite party No-3 filed attested copies of
(1) Out patient ticket, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam dated 4-11-2001 2) Case record dated 4-11-2001.
9. In view of the above submission made by the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant entitled for any relief as prayed or not.
Contd…4
-4-
10. The averments of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant No-1 was fallen down from the Neem tree, while cutting the said Neem tree on 30-10-2001 and received fractures to his both legs and multiple injuries all over the body, after the accident the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam while undergoing the treatment the deceased Veerabhadram died due to the injuries. The opposite party No-3 disputed the cause of death of the deceased, and as per them the deceased died due to Septicemia on 5-11-2001 and they further stated that the deceased Veerabhadram died due to his own negligence, and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation and on the other hand the case record of the deceased speaks that the deceased fallen from the tree on 30-10-2001, and on 5-11-2001 at 5-50a.m. the deceased was died in the Government Hospital, Khammam. The another objection raised by the opposite party No-3 was that the deceased was went to home against the advise of the attending doctors and due to the lack of proper medical care the deceased was died, but the opposite party No-3 did not filed any previous record pertaining to the deceased Veerabhadram prior to the case record dated 4-11-2001 whether the deceased was in serious condition or not, moreover the opposite party No-3 failed to adduce any expert evidence to prove their contention and at the same time they did not filed original case record before the Forum for arriving a conclusion and in the absence of any such clarification, the point raised by the opposite party No-3 cannot be sustained, and more over the death of the deceased was within one week from the date of accident, and according to the Hospital record the deceased was fallen from tree. In view of the above discussion we feel that the deceased fallen from the tree and got injuries and due to that injuries the deceased was succumbed and more over the opposite parties collected the premium amount from the deceased, and the deceased was loanee as on 14-4-2001. As such this point is answered
Contd…5
-5-
accordingly infavour of the complainants and they are liable to claim the amount due under the J.P.A.Policy .
11. In the result the C.D. is allowed and the opposite party No.3 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- due under the Janatha Personal Accident Policy together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 7-10-2005 till the date of realization within one month from the date of receipt of this order and the compliant No-1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- together with accrued interest there on and cost of Rs.1000/- and the complainants No-2 to 4 are entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- each together with accrued interest on their respective shares. The complaint against opposite parties No-1& 2 is dismissed.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4 th day of December, 2006.
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite Parties
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant Opposite Parties
NIL NIL
FAC President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
