BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

Friday the 29^th day of  August, 2008

C.C.No. 141/07

Between:

Telugu Maddamma, W/o. Late T.C.Jambanna,

Velugode Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.                 …  Complainant    

                                 Versus

1.  The Secretary, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society,

Velgode.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, By its Divisional Manager,

Kurnool                                                               … Opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                            

                              This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite party No.1 and Sri.D.Srinivasulu , Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following

ORDER

(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Lady Member)

C.C.No.141/07

1.           This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction to pay Rs.50,000/- assured amount under policy bearing NO.47/2006/9101, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, costs of the complaint and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service.

2.           The gist of the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the wife of T.C Jampanna who died on 8-1-2007 due to injuries caused by Telugu Sankar, G.Mallaiah, Telugu Hari Prasad on 3-1-2007. The deceased Jampanna was member of Opposite party NO.1’s society.  The members of opposite party No.1s society were covered under policy bearing No.47/2006/9101 issued by opposite party No.2.  Accordingly Opposite party No.1 deducted premiums from the account of its members and remitted the same to opposite party No.2 once in annum.  The said policies cover the life risk of Opposite party No.1’s members for Rs.50,000/-. On 31-1-2007 the deceased Jampanna was beated  with axe by Telugu Sankar, G.Mallaiah, Telugu Hari Prasad and G.Venkata Ramana with an intent to murder and the deceased was seriously injured and was shifted to Government General Hospital where he died on 8-1-2007 while under going treatment and a criminal case was also registered under section 302 R/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.2/07 of Velugodu Police Station on the claim preferred by the complainant it was repudiated by the Opposite party No.2 unilaterally without making any enquires.  Therefore, the complainant resorted to the Forum for relief.

3.           In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz ., (1) certified copy of FIR in Cr.2/07 of Velugodu Police Station (2) certified copy of Altered FIR (3) certified copy of inquest report (4) certified copy of Post mortem examination report.(5)Xerox of repudiation letter dated 23-08-2007 (copy marked to complainant), besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of her complaint  averments and the above documents  are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case.

4.           In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.

5.           The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that it is only a facilitator for the complainant and acted as a mediator to sent premium to opposite party No.2 on behalf of complainant and it has no role in settling the policies.  The dispute is between opposite party No.2 and complainant and it is  for the opposite party No.2 to settle the claim or repudiate it.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 and seeks for dismissal of case against opposite party No.1.

6.           The Written Version of opposite party No.2 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts, but submits that the sum and substance of FIR in that complainant and her sister had disputes over sharing of immovable assets for past 3 to 4 days prior to the date of death and which led to attack by the deceased and others.  Thereafter, the accused A1to A4 planned to kill the deceased and attacked on 3-1-2007  resulting in death of the deceased. In the inquest it is clearly stated that the deceased  and brothers supported the  candidature congress and there was an alteration between the deceased and his followers. Subsequently the accused A1 to A4 planned and attacked the deceased resulting in his death in the course of treatment.  The root cause of dispute is that  there was provocation before to the death of the deceased and the deceased  was very much aware of deadly attack as premeditated and planned manner.  Therefore, the opposite party rightly felt that the death does not come within scope of accidental death and rightly repudiated it.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

 7.          In support of their case the opposite party did not filed any document, but filed sworn affidavit (cross affidavit) of opposite party No.2  in reiteration of his complaint averments and replies  to the interrogatories exchanged. 

 8.          Hence, the point for consideration  is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.?

9.           It is the case of complainant that her husband T.C. Jambanna was member of opposite party No.1 society, who was covered under the policy bearing No. 47/2001/9101 issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs. 50,000/- on 08-01-2007. The policy holder died due to injuries caused by Telugu Sankar, G.Mallaiah and others on 3-1-2007.  On the claim preferred by the complainant for assured amount the opposite parties repudiated vide Ex.A5.  The Ex.A5 is the letter of opposite party No.2 addressed to opposite party No.1 marking its copy to complainant, it is stated that the policy holder received severe injuries and died, and the death due to provocated attempt to murder with willful  intension due to family conflicts and it is out side the scope of risk coverage under the policy terms and conditions. 

 10.                Hence, the only contention of opposite party No.2 is that due to provocation with willful intension due to past rivalries the death of the policy holder was invited one.  But the opposite party No.2 in substantiation of their contention did not choose to file any documentary records on file, except making allegation in their written version averments.  The opposite party No.2 also did not file any documents to show that the Cr.No.02/2007 of Velugodu police station covering the murder of the complainants husband T.C.Jampanna as an offshoot and logical consequence between the complainant and her sister due to disputes over sharing the immovable assests nor any material has been placed by the opposite party No.2 that the deceased policy holder provocated before to his death and was very much aware of deadly attack.

1. In the Ex.A1and A2 FIR and altered FIR it is stated that the complainant and his sister had conflicts as to property dispute FIR is meant only for commencement of law into force, and it is not finality and the finality will be seen only from the Judgment of the Court and no court Judgment is filed by opposite parties to support their contention nor in support of Ex.A1 and A2 no  material is filed to show that due to the said conflicts only the deceased policy holder was murdered. Now the point is to consider whether murder is an accident or not, accident means, the dictionary meaning of any unto ward incident in this case, the death of policy holder may be due to conflicts, but no body invites death.  Hence, absolutely there is no material on record in support of the contentions of the opposite party No. 2 in repudiating the claim of the complainant.  For want of substantiating material in support of opposite party No.2’s contentions the act of repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties as remaining with out any justifiable excuse.   The conduct of opposite party No.2 is certainly amounting to failure on their part in performing the statutory duty in repudiating the claim, there by amounting to deficiency of service and thereby entitling the complainant to the relief sought in the complainant.

1. As no cause of action is made out against opposite party No.1 the case against opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

1.  In the result, and in sum up of the above discussions, the case against opposite party No.1 is dismissed and allowed against opposite party No.2 directing opposite party No.2 to pay to the complainant the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- under policy bearing No. 47/2006/9101 and costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  In default the opposite party No.2 shall pay the supra award with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 29^th August, 2008.

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                   

MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT         

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

 For the complainant :Nil                For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1.          certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.02/2007 of P.S Velgodu.

EX.A2.          Certified copy of Altered FIR.

Ex.A3.          Certified copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A4.          Certified copy of post mortem examination report.

EX.A5.          Copy of letter dated 23-8-2007 marked to complainant

                   (repudiation letter)

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:  Nil

    Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT                        

// 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          :