DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2010
C.C.NO.84/2010
Between:
Smt. Y.Kullayamma,
W/o Y.C. Gangi Reddy,
Badinepalli Village,
Nallcheruvu Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainant
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Limited,
Nallcheruvu, Nallcheruvu Mandal,
Anantapur District.
2. The General Manager,
Anantapur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited,
Subash Road,
Anantapur.
3. The Reliance Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Anantapur. … Opposite Parties.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Nagi Reddy, advocate for the complainant and Sri T. Ramakrishna, advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and Sri P. Krishna Swamy Kumar, Advocate for the 3rd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount as per policy, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.21,000/- towards interest on Rs.1,00,000/- from 30.08.2008 to 30.0.2010 @ 12% p.a. with future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Badinepalli Village of Nallacheruvu Mandal. The complainant is the wife of one Y. Chinna Gangi Reddy (herein referred to as deceased). The deceased availed a loan from the 1st opposite party vide G.No.2265. At the time of availing loan, the deceased got his life insured with the 3rd opposite party through the 1st opposite party under J.P.A. Insurance Policy for Rs.1,00,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.10/- towards insurance premium. The complainant is the nominee in the said policy. As per the conditions of the policy, in the event of the accidental death of the policyholder, the nominee of the policyholder is entitled for assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- covered under the said policy. The deceased on 29.08.2008 at about 10.00 P.M. while irrigating his Sun Flower crop in his land at that time a snake has been bitten him and the deceased died on 30.08.2008 at 3.00 A.M. while undergoing treatment for snake bite. The certificate issued by the Doctor is filed alongwith this complaint. After the death of the deceased, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and informed the death of the deceased and submitted the relevant documents and requested for payment of the insurance amount. After receipt of the information by the 1st opposite party, in turn the 1st opposite party informed the 2nd opposite party and the same was communicated to the 3rd opposite party, but the 3rd opposite party has not responded to pay the insured amount to the complainant. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice on 03.05.2010 to the opposite parties 1 to 3, but there is no response to the said notice and the 2nd opposite party given reply with false allegations. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence, the complainant having no other go has filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter and contended that the deceased had taken crop loan from this opposite party first on 28.06.1999 and in that year an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards crop loan and like that every year loan was sanctioned and released to the deceased and the copy of account extract showing the releasing of loan from 28.06.1999 is filed alongwith counter. Lastly the deceased approached this opposite party and renewed his loan on 31.03.2007 and an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sanctioned to the deceased towards crop loan. After renewing the loan on 31.03.2007 the deceased had not repaid any amount to this opposite party and he became defaulter and subsequently he has not approached this opposite party. This opposite party every year after collecting the premium for covering the risk of J.P.A. will prepare a list of those agriculturists, who have renewed loans and paid premium to cover the risk of J.P.A. policy and sent the same to the 2nd opposite party to take the J.P.A. policy and in turn the 2nd opposite party as per the list of societies will take the policy collectively covering the risk of large number of borrowers, under J.P.A. policy. A model copy of the policy alongwith this counter filed. It is contended that the deceased had not renewed his loan during the year 2007-08 and no premium for covering the risk of J.P.A. of the deceased was collected by this opposite party and sent to the 2nd opposite party to take the policy under J.P.A. The account extract of the deceased is filed alongwith this counter it clearly shows that the last date of renewal on 31.03.2007 and the risk of J.P.A. of the deceased covers from 31.03.2007 to 30.03.2008 only. The deceased said to have died on 30.08.2008 and by that date the deceased had not renewed his loan and no premium covering the risk of the deceased under J.P.A. policy was collected by this opposite party and sent to the 2nd opposite party as such the risk of the deceased under J.P.A. policy is not covered as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. This opposite party is denied other averments mentioned in the complaint and contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The complainant has filed C.C.No.34/2009 before this Forum and the same was dismissed for default on 15.02.2010. The complainant instead of filling a petition for restoration of the same filed the present case against the same opposite parties 1 & 2 by impleading 3rd opposite party and the dismissal order against this opposite party operates as resjudicata against this opposite party. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter and contended that this opposite party has taken same plea of the 1st opposite party and this opposite party has unnecessarily repeated same.
5. The 3rd opposite party filed counter and contended that the complainant has not furnished the particulars of the policy alleged to be issued by this opposite party. Without the policy particulars, it is impossible to process the claim of the complainant. The complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to furnish the policy particulars for processing the claim of the complainant. This opposite party does not admit any contract of insurance with the 2nd opposite party insuring the risks of its customers at this stage. If they prove the contract of insurance positively, the liability of this opposite party is subject to the terms and conditions exceptions and limitations of the alleged policy. The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no intimation of claim to this opposite party regarding the death of the deceased. The notice dt.03.05.2010 was sent to the address at Anantapur, where the office of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited is situated. It was not addressed to the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, to whom the copy of this complaint is sent by this Forum describing this company as the 3rd opposite party. The Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited is completely different from the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. In the absence of any claim to this opposite party, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no privity of contract for this opposite party with the deceased or his wife, who is the complainant herein. The complainant has to prove that the deceased availed a loan from the 1st opposite party vide G.No.2265 and got insured his life with the 3rd opposite party under J.P.A. policy for Rs.1,00,000/- and that he paid Rs.10/- towards premium and the complainant also put to strict proof that she is the nominee under the alleged policy and she is entitled for the assured amount under the alleged policy. The complainant has to prove that the deceased died due to snake bite on 30.08.2008. No legal notice dt.03.05.2010 was addressed to this opposite party. No documents are furnished by the complainant to this opposite party through the 1st opposite party regarding the death of the deceased. This opposite party never received any documents from the complainant and hence settlement of the claim does not arise at all. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. This opposite party denied the other averments mentioned in the complaint and contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the deceased has renewed his crop loan for the Kharif Season 2008 by
paying Rs.10/- to the 1st opposite party?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3?
If so whether the opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay to the complainant in respect of the amount claimed in the complaint by the complainant?
3. To what relief?
7. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Exs.B1 to B3 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.4 document. On behalf of the 3rd opposite party, the evidence on affidavit of the 3rd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.5 document.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1
Accordingly, this point is answered.
20. POINT NO.2: - In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances, each party do bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 12th day of September, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
Typed by NVBR
