Karnataka

Kolar

CC/13/2015

Sonnappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Superitendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.V.Venkatachala

09 Nov 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/04/2015

Date of Order: 09/11/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 09^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 13 OF 2015

Sri. Sonnappa,

S/o. Late Munichowdappa,

Aged About 50 years,

R/at: Beeramanahalli Village,

Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.V.Venkatachalagowda, Advocate)      ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

The Senior Superintendent

Of Post Office,

Kolar Division Office,

P.C. Extension, Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth.P.N. Krishna Reddy, Advocate)        …. Opposite Party.

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred in short as “the act”) against opposite party has sought issuance of directions to OP to make payment of Insurance claim in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of realization and any other reliefs as the forum to deem fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, Late. Ramakka, W/o. Late. Munichowdappa, aged about 35 years, mother of complainant was the policy holder of the postal life insurance policy bearing No. R-KT-SK-EA-392777 issued on 12.03.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh) risk commenced from the date of issuance of policy till maturity date or death of insured whichever is earlier.

 

(a)    It is contended that, the complainant was the nominee under the said policy.  And that the insured had regularly paid all premium amount of Rs.331/- per month and the insured died on 06.07.2013.

 

(b)    It is also case of the complainant that, he being nominee and legal heir of the insured orally informed to OP about the death of the insured and that the OP was silent in settling the matter.  And that, being aggrieved by this act of OP, he got issued legal notice through his counsel on 06.03.2015 for which also there could be no response.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued with regard to the case on hand, OP has put in his appearance through his said learned counsel and submitted written version.

 

(a)    The main contention of the OP is that, the deceased/insured had made her husband Munichowdappa as nominee who predeceased (09.08.2012) and as the complainant was not nominee to the said policy and policy holder died without nominee hence nobody could claim.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, age of the insured as 50 years (reliance on voter ID) as on the date of policy whereas she declared date of birth as on 05.09.1973 and hence 35 years, because of suppression of facts Under Rule 39 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules was cause for rejecting the claim.  And also contended that, the complainant ought to have submitted succession certificate.  And that as the complainant cannot claim policy amount.  And that hence the complainant is not a consumer and that, OP was not deficient in rendering the service.  So contending dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been sought.

 

04.   The complainant on 06.07.2015 has submitted his affidavit evidence and on behalf of the complainant following Xerox copies of documents have been submitted:-

(i) Postal Life Insurance Policy

(ii) Death Certificate of Ramakka

(iii) Legal Notice with Postal receipt dated: 06.03.2015

(iv) Ration Card of complainant family

(v) G-Tree of complainant family.

 

05.   On 27.07.2015 the learned counsel appearing for OP has submitted affidavit evidence and relied on rules of department of posts.

 

06.   The learned counsel appearing for complainant submitted written arguments on 11.08.2015, subsequently the learned counsel appearing for Op has submitted written argument on 03.09.2015.

 

07.   Heard the oral arguments of both the learned counsel.

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether there is relationship of customer and service provider between the complainant and OP?

 

2.  If so, whether the repudiation of the claim by the OP would amount to deficiency in service?

 

3.  If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 

4.   What order?

 

09.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

 

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:     In the Affirmative

 

POINT 3:     The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- being the maturity value of the insurance policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-EA-392777 along with interest @ 9% per annum from 07.04.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization from the OP.

 

POINT 4:     As per final order for the   

                       following:-

 

REASONS

POINTS 1 to 3:-

10.   As these points do deserve common course of discussion and to avoid repetition in reasonings, they are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

(a)    Insured was almost illiterate so also the complainant as coming from rural background.  Once the complainant made an attempt to claim the amount under the policy, if according to the OP there was no nominee for the policy and age factor disclosed by the deceased insured and want of Succession Certificate on the part of the complainant to come in the way, the responsible OP ought to have disclosed the said aspects and then repudiated the claim.

 

(b)    Apart from oral intimation about death of the insured her son, the complainant got legal notice issued.  For this also the OP is silent.

 

(c)    At any rate as a gesture of responsible conduct the OP ought to have denied such oral approach or about contended issuance of legal notice.  The in-action of OP would reveal that the said approaches made by the complainant were true.

 

(d)    As admittedly the insured was the customer and on her demise on 06.07.2013 the complainant being her son since succeeded to the estate of the deceased he is customer as against the OP.

 

(e)    The next contention is with regard to false declaration of age on the part of the deceased.  It is high time to take up such contention, that too after acceptance of said age of 35 years as declared by the insured.  So this is flimsy excuse the opponent intends to put forth.

 

(f)     Obtaining of Succession Certificate cannot be an issue in the presence of admitted position of the complainant as a son of deceased insured.  As husband of the insured pre-deceased, as he died on 09.08.2012 viewed from any angle the complainant is bound to succeed for the claim made vide said policy.  When so, we cannot direct the complainant to get Succession Certificate.

 

(g)    For the reasons and findings mentioned above we hold that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in repudiating the claim, though all the premiums were deposited by the policy holder.  Therefore in our view the complainant is entitled to policy amount.

 

(h)    Hence we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) to the complainant along with compensation by way of interest which shall be at the rate of 9% per annum over the matured sum from 07.04.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization, for to be recovered from the OP. 

 

POINT 4:-

11.   In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons this complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder:-

 

(a) The complainant is held entitled to recover Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) being the maturity value of the insurance policy bearing No. R-KT-SK-EA-392777 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum over the matured sum from 07.04.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization, for to be recovered from the OP.

 

(b) The OP is given time of one month to comply the order from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 09^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015)

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                     PRESIDENT