Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite parties to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with subsequent interest, compensation for mental agony and costs Rs.50,000/-.   

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant is the wife of Late Nallapati Rama Krishna who died on 24-05-10 leaving behind complainant as his legal heir.  The late Nallapati Rama Krishna was a member and Kisan Credit Card holder of PACS, Velpur i.e. 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s deceased husband / insured is member of 1^st opposite party obtained a policy from the 2^nd opposite party through 3^rd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party obtained a policy for its members under Kisan Credit Card Holders covering risk for the death of farmers in 2^nd opposite party bearing No.62100247094300000370.  The accident occurred to the insured on 24-05-2010 due to his plough the 1^st row in turning the tractor for 2^nd row in his field.  The front tyres of the tractor crossed the ditch and slipped into the pit situated beside the ditch.  When the insured tried to pull forward the tractor it was turn turtle and insured fell under the tractor and died on the spot.  The police registered the case under crime No.25/2010 of Achempet Police Station.  Immediately the complainant approached and informed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties for payment of insurance amount.  The complainant submitted relevant papers like F.I.R., Postmortem inquest, death certificate and also legal heir certificate to the 2^nd opposite party.  But for one reason or the other the 2^nd opposite party is postponing the claim.  The complainant has sent a legal notice to the all the opposite parties through her counsel which they received the same and only 2^nd opposite party replied with all false averments.  The 2^nd opposite party has committed deficiency of service by not settling the claim though legally bound to the pay insurance claim to the legal heirs of the insured Nallapati Rama Krishna.  The complainant approached opposite parties recently who promised to settle the claim but did not choose to settle the same.  Hence the complaint. 

3.      1^st Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows:

        This opposite party is not proper party to the complaint.  The insured, complainant’s husband late  N.Siva Rama Krishna (N.Rama Krishna as per the complaint, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party’s version and FIR)  was just nominal member of the 1^st opposite party.  As can be observed from insurance policy No. 621002/47/09/43/00000370 issued by the 2^nd opposite party, the insured party is State Bank of India, Achampet.  Insurance policy was obtained by State Bank of India, for its Kisan Credit Card holders.  The insured/husband of the complainant was Kisan Credit Card holder of State Bank of India and has obtained loan from S.B.I.  Therefore if the complainant have any claim or grievance it should be settled with the 2^nd or 3^rd opposite parties but not with this opposite party.  Therefore the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party with costs. 

4.      2^nd Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows:

          The complainant is guilty of suppressiovari and suggestiofalsi and as such the complaint itself is not maintainable.  The State Bank of India, Achampet Branch, Guntur District has obtained the policy bearing No. 621002/47/09/43/00000370 from this opposite party obtaining insurance coverage for 3,829 Kisan Credit Card holders for the period 30-12-09 to 29-12-10 @ Rs.50,000/- per head totaling to Rs.19,14,50,000/-

5.     On receipt of information from the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Achampet i.e., 3^rd opposite party through the letter dated 26-06-10 about the death of the complainant, this opposite party appointed an investigator Mr.N.Vinay Kumar, who submitted the report dated           20-08-10.  It is born out by the record that the complainant’s husband while ploughing the fields with the tractor lost control which turn turtle and died underneath the tractor.  This opposite party has asked the complainant and the State Bank of India to submit the driving license of the insured Nallapati Rama Krishna.  But the complainant did not choose to submit the same.  This opposite party is constrained to close the claim file of the complainant and sent letter/notice dated 26-08-11 to 3^rd opposite party and also to the complainant in this regard.  Complainant and 3^rd opposite party received the said notice and kept quite.  As per Law and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act one should possess driving license to drive the vehicle.  This opposite party is ready to process the claim on submission of driving license of the insured.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

6.      3^rd Opposite party filed its version which is in brief as follows:

        It is true that Nallapati Rama Krishna who died on 24-05-10 was the member of Kisaan Credit Card holder of PACS as well as the Bank and had availed loan of Rs.30,000/- from the Bank under Account No.30494567596 on 17-09-08.  Subsequently his loan account was insured with 2^nd opposite party by a master policy No. 621002/47/09/43/00000370 covering from 30-12-09 to 29-12-10.  The insured died due to tractor accident and a police case was registered at Achampet police station under F.I.R. No. 25/10. This opposite party informed to the complainant to produce the relevant documents.  The complainant produced all the documents except the driving license and admitted through a letter that her husband had no driving license to drive the vehicle and as such could not produce the same.  The Bank has nothing to do with the matter except forwarding the same to the 2^nd opposite party.  It is the 2^nd opposite party who has to pursue the matter and settle the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.  Complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

7.     All the parties filed their respective affidavits.  Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the opposite party. 

8.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:       

        1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of

     service?

2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

9.      POINT NO.1:-  The 2^nd opposite party gave insurance coverage to 3,829 Kisan Credit Card holders under the policy No.621002/47/09/43/00000370 for a period of 30-12-09 to 29-12-10 @Rs.50,000/- per head.  On receipt of death information of the complainant’s insured husband/insured, the 2^nd opposite party appointed an investigator by name Mr.N.Vinay Kumar who gave a report dated 20-08-10.  The version of the 2^nd opposite party revealed the insured while ploughing the fields with tractor lost control and the tractor turned turtle and died underneath the tractor.  The complainant submitted all the documents required by the 2^nd opposite party except driving license.  Subsequently the claim was closed by the 2^nd opposite party for absence of driving license. 

10.   The insurance policy i.e. Ex.A-1 and B-1, is not bearing any condition that the driving license is pre-requisite to obtain the claim.  When there is no such condition expression in the policy the 2^nd opposite party cannot demand for driving license to disburse policy amount.  Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  

11.    The accident to the insured took place on 24-05-10 and the same was intimated by letter dated 26-06-10 by the 3^rd opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party’s Surveyor submitted report on 20-08-10 (as per the version of the 2^nd opposite party). The 2^nd opposite party repudiated the claim on 26-08-11 (as per the version of the 2^nd opposite party).  There is more than one year delay on the part of 2^nd opposite party in repudiating the claim which causes mental agony to the complainant. 

12.    The complainant is nominal member to the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party discharged its duty by informing about the death of the insured by forwarding the necessary documents to the 2^nd opposite party.  1^st and 3^rd opposite parties have nothing to do with the settlement of the claim.  It is the 2^nd opposite party who has to settle the claim.  Hence, the claim against 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties is dismissed.       

13.    POINT NO. 2:- The 2^nd opposite party demanding insured’s driving license from the complainant, without any express condition on the policy, amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

14.    In the result, the complaint is allowed in terms as indicated below : 

1.  The 2^nd opposite party is hereby directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of Investigator report i.e.,20-08-10 till realization.    

2.  The 2^nd opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) towards compensation for mental agony.

3.  The 2^nd opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) towards the costs of the complaint. 

      4.   The claim against 1^st and 3^rd opposite party is dismissed. 

The above order shall be complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amounts orders in item NOs. 1 & 2 shall carry the interest @ 9% p.a.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:

PRESIDENT