::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.121/2016.
Date of filing: 16.12.2016.
Date of disposal: 31.03.2018.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, B.A., LL.B.,
President.
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Smt.Ujawalabai W/o Late Chander Rao Patil,
Age: 45 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
2. Swaroop Rao S/o Pundlika Rao,
Age: major, Occ: agriculture,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
3. Aishwaraya D/o Late Chander Rao
Age: minor,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
4. Soundaraya D/o Late Chander Rao,
Age: 8 Years,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
5. Vishwajeet S/o Late chander Rao,
Age: 12 years, Occ: agriculture,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
6. Vaibhav S/o Late Chander Rao,
Age: 6 year,
R/o Mural Village, post Beeri-K,
Tq and Dist: Bidar.
All 3 to 6 complainants are minor
represented by mother guardian
Smt.Ujwalabai W/o Late Chander Rao.
(By Sri. K.Baburao Patil., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Sr.Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
divisional office, PB No.43
Jeevan Prakash station road, Raichur.
2) The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Br.BAsavakalya Tq: Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri.Sanjay Patil., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is the second successive one before us alleging deficiency of service in the part of the opponents. The earlier C.C.No.15/2016, instituted by the complainant was earlier dismissed for non prosecution for which the recent complaint is in confirmity with order IX Rule 4 of the C.P.C.
The averments of the complaint in a nutshell are as follows:-
2. That, one Chander Rao (Late) the husband of the 1st complainant, son of the second and father of the rest was R.C. owner in respect of a motor cycle bearing No.KA39 H 7722. He had obtained two policies from the opponents bearing Nos.66221003 and 662075587 coupled with accidental death benefit, which ipso facto means in the event of death by accident of the proposer, the nominee(s)/heir(s) of the proposer would get double of the sum assured.
3. That, the deceased proposer, a Government Teacher, on 25.06.2011 while proceeding on his motor Cycle along with one Shamrao S/o
Sopan Rao, towards Keroor Village, and in the limits of Nittoor Village on Amdabad Nittur Road , one Raju s/o Jagannath riding another motor cycle No.KA38L1340 from the opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed against the vehicle of Chandra Rao (Late), resulting falling on the road, sustaining fatal injuries and instant death. The pillion escaped with minor injuries, filed police complaint with jurisdictional Dhanura Police Station for which Cr.No.91/2011 alleging offences u/s 279,338 and 304-A I.P.C. was registered, investigated and the rider of the offending vehicle was prosecuted, Panchanama was drawn and Postmortem was conducted on the body of Chander Rao.
4. That, consequentially, claim was raised with the opponent L.I.C. who though paid the sum assured with accrued benefits, demanded to produce the Driving License of Chandar Rao, to pay the accidental benefit. It is stated that, though the complainants could produce all other documents like F.I.R., inquest panchananama, P.M. report etc. proving the death of policy holder late Chander Rao, the Driving License could not be traced and produced for which the opponent corporation refused to pay the accidental death coverage for which the present complaint.
5. The opponents putting up appearances upon notice have filed written versions admitting the fact of Late Chander Rao being the policy holder of No.66221003 and 662075587, his death and the fact of the complainant No.1 as the nominee. They also admit the fact of registration of the police case and further that, they have settled the basic case infavour of the complainant No.1.
6. However in Para 4 of the versions, they have raised a doubt regarding possession of a valid Driving License by the deceased policy holder, inserting a reasoning that, Driving License holders carry Xerox copy of the same with them and keep the original at home. They try to negate the claim of the complainants that, the deceased was carrying original driving license in person and the same was lost in the accident. The opponents have tried to justify their rebuttal of denying the accidental death benefit on the ground that, the deceased policy holder was not holding any Driving License at all, and they are not bound to grant accidental death benefit.
7. Both sides have filed documents as listed at the end of this order, led their evidence and filed written arguments.
8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties to the feud the following points arise for our considerations:-
a. Do the complainants prove deficiency of service?
b. Do the opponents prove that, they were justified in refuting
the claim of granting accidental benefits?
c. What orders?
9. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
Point No.1. In the affirmative in part.
Point No.2. In the negative.
Point No.2. As per final orders, owing to the following.
REASONS.
Points No.1 and 2.
10. Both the points veer around together, have to be dealt together and answered commonly.
11. The opponents in all fairness, have admitted the fact of obtainment of policies, death of the policy holder and also the settlement of the basic claims. They dispute the claim of accidental double benefit on the ground that, the driving Licence of the deceased policy holder could not be secured and produced for their reference. They also insert a pleading that, every Driving License holder carries a Xerox copy of Driving License and keeps the original at home.
12. We don’t find any logic in the contention of the opponents. No provision of M.V. Act, authorizes a valid Driving License holder to carry a photo (Xerox) Copy and keep the original at home. The contra inference then would be, the deceased was bound by law to carry the original Driving License in his person. Now, then, after a violent accident causing the fatal fall, injuries and instant death, who would be liable to explain the existence of the Driving License? Had the person been alive, we would have compelled him to produce his credentials. But alas, he is no more to speak.
13. Next, at Bidar, we have come across strange scenarios. At times, we have seen, a Tractor registered in Andhra Pradesh or Telengana, its Trailer registered in Maharashtra, is owned and possessed by a person of Bidar District, which is quite possible, the district being bordered in the North and West by Maharashtra, East by erstwhile Andhra Pradesh and present Telengana, all in confirmity with the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution of India. Earlier, there was no rules or stringest procedures prescribing photo I.D. Cards, address proofs etc. and the deceased might have acquired a Driving License from any of the three states. But would it be prudent and logical to demand production of Driving License of a deceased person by his inheritors? We feel that, the demand of the opponents is hyper technical and have no hesitation to reject it.
14. Our reasoning is based on the long standing principles of “de mortis nil nisi bonum”. Don’t speak against a dead man.
15. Further, it is in the mandate of the Hon’ble apex Court’s judgement reported in III (2007) CPJ 3 (sc) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. v/s Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. That, “where two views are possible, the one favours the consumer should be accepted”.
16. Thereby, we reject the defense of the opponents and answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly.
Point No.3.
17. We have gone through the pleadings and admissions of the opponents, where in they have admitted the fact that, the complainant No.1 was the nominee both policies. However, we see that, in policy No.662075587, the D.L.A. had nominated his mother by name Koshibai, and in policy No.66220003, his minor daughter Kum. Aishwarya. To put the matter straight, we had sought for further clarification from the learned counsel for the complainants. He had at a later stage produced Genealogical tree (Vamsavali Patra) issued by the village Accountant at Ex.P.15 and copy of Family ration Card at Ex.P.16. from the Vamsavali Parta it is forthcoming that, Koshibai, the nominee in Policy oo.662075587 is since dead, leaving behind her husband Swroop Rao (complainant No.2) and complainant No.3 to 6 as her legal heirs. Said Swaroop Rao as P.W.2 has filed an affidavit that, his wife has since expired leaving the complainants as legal heirs under the care of the complainant No.1, further that, she is taking care of all as the Manager of the family. The family ration card atEx.P.16 also proves that, all complainants are members of a joint Hindu family, In Para-4 of the affidavit, said Swaroop Rao has testified that, he has no objections if the accidental death benefit is awarded in favour of his daughter-in-law Ujwala Bai.
18. It is worth noting that, as per the admissions of the opponents, the earlier policy benefits have been disbursed to Smt. Ujwala Bai. However, it would be prudent to safe guard the pecuniary interest of minor daughter Aishwarya, The nominee in policy No.662210003 and therefore we proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to disburse the accidental death benefits in Policy No.662075587 in favour of Smt. Ujwala Bai and that of Policy No.662210003 in favour of Kumari. Aishwarya, together with accrued benefits if any;
- The proceeds as aforesaid would carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of realisation;
- The proceeds to be disbursed to Kumari. Aishwarya is ordered to be kept in F.D. in her name, till she attains majority, in a nationalised or scheduled bank to be choosen by complainant No.1;
- In the face of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we would not saddle the opponent s to pay any compensatory amount;
- A sum of Rs.5,000/- be paid as litigation expenses to the complainants;
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of March 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Original letter of L.I.C. date: 15.07.2014 demanding driving
license. - Ex.P.2– Office copy of legal notice date: 29.06.2016.
- Ex.P.3– Postal receipt of the above.
- Ex.P.4—Postal acknowledgement.
- Ex.P.5- Copy of receipt of L.I.C. regarding claims application.
- Ex.P.6 – Original reply to legal notice by O.P.s date: 09.07.2015.
- Ex.P.7-Copy F.I.R.
- Ex.P.8- Copy of case diary in Cr.No.91/2011 of Dhanura Police
Station. - Ex.P.9- Spot Mahazar in Cr.No.91/2011 of Dhanura Police Station.
- Ex.P.10- Copy of Post Mortem report.
- Ex.P.11- Copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.91/2011 of Dhanura Police
Station. - Ex.P.12- Copy of claim position in M.V.C. No. 161/2011 of M.A.C.T.,
Bidar. - Ex.P.13- Copy of award in M.V.C. No.161/2011 of M.a. Act, Bidar.
- Ex.P.14- Endorsement of Asst. R.T.O. Bhalki date: 14.09.2017.
- Ex.P.15- Genealogical true in original.
- Ex.P.16- Copy of Family Ration Card.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Ex.R.1- Copy of policy No.662075587.
- Ex.R.2-Copy of Policy NO.662210003.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Smt.Ujwala Bai w/o Late Chander Rao (complainant No.1).
- P.W.2- Sri Swaroop Rao S/o Late Pundalik Rao.
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Sri. G. Venkat Sai, authorised officer and Branch Manager of
L.I.C.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
