Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/116/2017

Thippamma W/o Late.S.B.Pappaya - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary,APMC - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.K.Mallikarajunaswamy

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:13.11.2017

DISPOSED  ON:11.10.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:116/2017

 

DATED:  11^th OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                             B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Thippamma, W/o Late S.B.Pappaya @ Papanna, Aged about 52 years, R/o Madakari Nagara, Challakere Town, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.G.K. Mallikarjuna Swamy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Challakere.   2. The Chief Manager, Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangalore Division, Office No.16, 2nd Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore-01.   3. The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, 4th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, J.C.Road, Bangalore-02   (Rep by Sri.C.S.Kireetishetty, Advocate for OP No.1 and 2 and Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate for OP No.3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay the policy amount along with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of policy and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, her husband by name S.B. Papaiah @ Papanna was working as Hamali under OP No.1.  He has obtained Janashree Bheema Group Insurance Policy from OP No.3 through OP No.1 and 2 in the year 2007 and was paying the premium amount every year up to 2016-17 to the OP No.3. It is further submitted that, on 01.09.2016 the husband of the complainant died leaving behind the complainant as the only legal heir.  As per the school records, the date of birth of the said Papaiah was 20.02.1957.  After the death of her husband, the complainant has filed an application before the OP No.1 seeking policy amount of Rs.30,000/-, but, till today, OP No.1 never sanctioned any amount to the complainant.  On 24.07.2017 the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs through her counsel requesting them to pay the premium amount.  After issuance of the legal notice, OPs have given reply on 12.10.2017 to the legal notice denying the entire allegations made in the notice.  Now the complainant prays to give Rs.30,000/-, the policy amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and other expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings and Rs.5,000/- towards legal notice.  The cause of action for this complaint arose from 2007 to 2015 when the husband of the complainant has purchased the above said policy and on 01.09.2016 the date of death of husband of the complainant, the date of filing an application before the OPs on 26.09.2016, the date of legal notice i.e., on 24.07.2017 and the date of reply given by the OPs i.e., on 12.10.2017 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     After service of notice to the OPs, one Sri.C.S. Kiritee Shetty, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and filed version and Sri. L. Madhusudhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and filed version.

According to the OP No.1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The averments made in para 3 that, the husband of complainant was born on 20.02.1957 and his age at the time of his death was 58 years.  It is true that, the complainant has given application on 26.09.2016 to OP No.1 seeking compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of death of her husband.  It is false to state that, the OP No.1 and 2 have not made arrangements to pay the compensation amount.  The OP No.1 and 2 have requested the complainant has to produce all the requirements to pay the compensation amount, to send the same to OP No.3.  There is a delay on the part of complainant to comply the legal requirements and after receipt of the documents, OP No.1 and 2 have send the same to OP No.3 vide letter dated 07.10.2016 along with format namely Data required to be submitted for AMM AADMI BHIMA YOJANA SCHEME for the year 2016-17 stating that, the husband of complainant is a member of the Insurance Scheme under receipt dated 02.03.2010 paid by the husband of complainant.  The delay is caused in sending the transfer certificate of her husband showing the date of birth of her husband.  As per the transfer certificate, the date of birth of late Papaiah is within the permitted period and he is entitled for compensation and his age was within 59 years.  The policy will be given by the OP No.2 only after fulfilling the conditions of the said Scheme.   The matter was considered by the OP No.1 and 2 and the proposal was sent to OP No.3 to pay the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-.  The OP No.3 sent a letter to OP No.2 stating that, the age of husband of complainant was 69 years and therefore the claim of the complainant is rejected as he has crossed the age of 69 years and the same has also intimated to the complainant, which is illegal and unlawful and against to the scheme of the Act.  The only condition at the time of taking proposal is that, the person must be aged between 18 and 59 years.  The age of the husband of the complainant was 59 years as per the date of birth certificate.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- from OP No.3.  When the OP No.3 accepted the premium amount from late Papaiah, it has no right to reject the proposal stating that, the complainant is not entitled to get the compensation.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

OP No.3 filed version and taken a contention that, the husband of the complainant was working as Hamali in APMC are not known to OP No.3 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  It is further submitted that, as per the transfer certificate the date of birth of husband of complainant was 20.02.1957 is not known to this OP.  It is further submitted that, as per the AADHAR Card and Voter ID, the date of birth of husband of complainant was 1948 and as the date of death, his age is more than 60 years.  In AAM AADMI, claim is payable only if the death occurs during 18 to 59 years.  After crossing the 60 years, the Nodal agencies are not remitting the premium to this OP and this OP has not received the premium amount after crossing the 60 years.  The claim document has been received from the nodal agency on 07.04.2017 and the claim rejection letter had been sent on 22.04.2017.  This OP has intimated the nodal agency on 22.04.2017 regarding non-applicability of claim due to age beyond the policy condition as the age of the husband of complainant had crossed 60 years and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP and the complainant has put to strict proof of the same and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 got marked.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri.Kaleel Sab, the Secretary of APMC, Challakere as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents have been produced and on behalf of OP No.3 one Sri. B. Shamanna, Manager of OP No.3 has examined as DW-2 and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have refused to pay the Janashree Bheema Yojana Insurance amount to the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

                Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the husband of the complainant was working as Hamali under OP No.1.  He has obtained Janashree Bheema Group Insurance Policy from OP No.3 through OP No.1 and 2 in the year 2007 and was died on 01.09.2016. After the death of her husband, the complainant has filed an application before the OPs requesting to pay Rs.30,000/- under Janashree Bheema Group Insurance Policy Scheme.  But, the OP NO.3 refused the same.  The OP No.1 and 2 have stated that, as per the policy conditions, the age of the beneficiary is within 59 years but, OP No.3 has stated that, as per the AADHAR and Voter ID, at the time of death of the husband of the complainant he was aged about 69 years.  The contention of OP No.1 and 2 is that, they have collected premium from the husband of the complainant and send the same to OP No.3, therefore, OP No.3 is only the competent person to give money to the complainant.  But, the OP No.3 taken a contention that, the age of husband of the complainant at the time of death was 60 years.  But as per the documents produced by the complainant, the age of the husband of the complainant is within 59 years.  According to the OP No.1 and 2, the OP No.3 is held liable to pay the amount.

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP No.1 to 3. The husband of the complainant was working as Hamali under OP No.1 and he obtained Janashree Bheema Group Insurance Policy from OP No.3 through OP No.1 and 2 in the year 2007. The husband of the complainant has paid insurance premium amount to the OP No.3 through OP No.1 and 2 from 2007 to 2016 and died on 01.09.2016.  After the death of her husband, the complainant filed an application before the OP No.1 to give policy amount of Rs.30,000/-.  The OPs have denied to sanction the amount to the complainant.  Finally, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs.  According to the OP No.3, the husband of the complainant was aged about 69 years at the time of death.  Further OP No.1 and 2 admits that, they have collected the premium amount from the husband of the complainant and send the same to OP No.3.  OP No.3 is only liable to pay the compensation amount to the complainant.  OP No.3 has taken a contention that, at the time of death of the husband of the complainant, his age was more than 60 years but, the same is not acceptable because, at the time of preparing the AADHAR and Election ID card, the age was entered by taking instructions from the parties orally.  As per the transfer certificate obtained from the School, the age of the husband of complainant was below 59 years.  Hence, the version of OP No.3 is not believable under law.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation from OP No.3.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          10. Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards death benefit of her husband under Janashree Bheema Group Insurance Policy along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of death of the husband of complainant i.e., 01.09.2016 till realization.

 It is further ordered that the OP No. 3 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- costs of the proceedings.

Complaint filed as against OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 11/10/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

           

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined onbehalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined onbehalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Kaleel Sab, the Secretary of APMC, Challakere by way of affidavit evidence.

DW-2:  B. Shamanna, Manager of OP No.3 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked onbehalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Voter ID of complainant
02	Ex-A-2:-	Aadhar Card of complainant
03	Ex-A-3:-	School Transfer Certificate
04	Ex.A-4:-	Death Certificate of husband of complainant
05	Ex.A-5:-	Receipt No.88788 dated 02.03.2010
05	Ex-A-6:-	Legal Notice dated 24.07.2017
06	Ex.A-7:-	3 Postal receipts
06	Ex-A-8:-	Reply to legal notice dated 12.10.2017

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 02.03.2016 by OP No.1 and 2 to OP No.3
02	Ex-B-2:-	Copy of cheque bearing No.073141 dated 02.03.2016
03	Ex-B-3:-	Copy of Data required to be submitted for AAM AADMI BHIMA YOJANA SCHEME for 2016-17.

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**