IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 430/09 DATED 24.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.Mahadevamma, <br /> D/o Nanjundappa, <br /> R/at Uthenahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Panchavalli Post, Periyapatna Taluk.<br /> (By Sri. P.Raju, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Regional Manager,<br /> The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India), D.CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-5700017.<br /> 2. The Manager, <br /> The TATA AIG Life Insurance Co.Ltd., NO.474, 80 Ft.Road, 6th Block, Opp. To Koramangala Bus Depot, Koramangala, <br /> Bangalore-560095.<br /> (By Sri. B.Paneesh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1 and <br /> Sri. Ashwini Kumar Joshi, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 17.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 02.12.2009<br /> Date of order : 24.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 22 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,23,000/- the policy amount including interest and the damages.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, father of the complainant by name Nanjundappa was a tobacco grower. He was registered with the first opposite party under TBGR No.62062013 dated 17.10.2005. He used to sell the tobacco to the first opposite party at Periyapatna. While selling the tobacco, deducted a sum of Rs.448/- out of the said price of the tobacco towards premium for insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the same to the second opposite party under group insurance scheme. On 18.08.2005, father of the complainant died. It was informed to the opposite parties with a request to pay the amount under the scheme. In spite of the requests and legal notices, the opposite parties have not disbursed the insured amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. Both opposite parties colluded with each other to squat the money of farmers and they are playing fraud. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite party, they went on promising to disburse the amount. The opposite party having not paid the policy amount, amounts to deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complainant is also entitled for damages. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party in the version admitted, most of the facts stated in the complaint. Further, in the version, it is stated that, as per the MOU entered into between this opposite party and second opposite party, service commenced from 23.08.2005 itself and the second opposite party collected a sum of Rs.1,65,40,920/- the premium amount from this opposite party, which includes the premium of Nanjundappa father of the complainant. This opposite party many times requested the second opposite party to settle the claim through legal notices dated 17.10.2006 and 16.12.2006. It is the responsibility of the second opposite party to settle the claim. Certain other allegations are denied.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party in the version has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not declared that she alone is the legal heir of the deceased Nanjundappa. It is stated that, first opposite party initially provided the list containing the age of the members. Age of Nanjundappa was above 60 years. This opposite party intimated the first opposite party that, members above the age 60 to 64 years have to provide a good health declaration and on receipt of the same, would be included in the policy. A letter dated 21.09.2005 was sent to the first opposite party. Another letter dated 27.09.2005 reminding the first opposite party to submit good health declaration, but there was no response. It is stated that, on 26.11.2005 through the first opposite party, this opposite party received the claim with certain documents. Claim was signed by one S.N.Nagaraju. By the letter dated 17.01.2006, this opposite party intimated the first opposite party that the claim cannot be processed as good health declaration was not received. It is contended that, no legal notices from first opposite party are received. Also, it is stated that, this opposite party refunded the entire premium amount to the first opposite party. Certain other allegations in the complaint are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, Regional Manager of the first opposite party and Authorized Signatory of the second opposite party have filed their affidavits and certain documents are produced for them. We have heard the arguments of the advocate for the complainant as well as opposite parties and perused the records. <br /> 6. For the complainant, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed to condone the delay if any. In the accompanying affidavit, amongst other facts, it is stated that, the complainant approached first opposite party to take benefits under the group insurance scheme of his father, but every time it was told shortly the amount will be disbursed and hence, under the circumstances, if there is any delay, same may be condoned. To this application, no objections are filed and considering the facts stated in the affidavit as well as the other circumstances, in the interest of justice, the delay is hereby condoned.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that there is any deficiency in service on the part of either of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. Point no. 1:- Admitted facts noted in the earlier paragraphs are not repeated. <br /> <br /> 10. First contention of the second opposite party is that, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not declared that she is the only legal heirs of the deceased Nanjundappa. Also, it is contended that, the claim petition was submitted by one S.N.Nagaraju. Even though, the complainant has not declared that she alone is the legal heir of the deceased, for the complainant, Xerox copy of ration card is produced, wherein the claims of the legal heirs of the deceased Nanjundappa including that of the complainant are shown. As stated therein, in addition to the wife the complainant, the deceased has left behind him four sons. One of the sons is Nagaraju. He had singed the claim petition. Under the circumstances, only because of the heirs of the deceased have not joined the complainant, the entire claim if legally permissible, cannot be denied on the said ground. However, interest of justice will meet if other legal heirs who are the sons of the present complainant as well as of the deceased are directed to submit the voucher at the time of receipt of the amount.<br /> <br /> 11. Next contention of the second opposite party is that, age of deceased Nanjundappa was about 60 years. Hence, second opposite party intimated the first opposite party to furnish good health declaration along with letter dated 21.09.2005 and 27.09.2005. Though, for the second opposite party Xerox copy of two letters are produced, having served the said notices either on the first opposite party or on Nanjundappa or his heirs, no acknowledgement is produced. Hence, in the absence of proof of service of such notice, the contention of the second opposite party cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is not the case of the second opposite party that, the deceased Nanjundappa had no good health.<br /> 12. Further contention of the second opposite party is that, through the letter dated 17.01.2006 addressed to the first opposite party, it was informed that the claim cannot be processed as good health declaration not furnished. First of all, as considered in the earlier paragraph, the second opposite party has failed to prove service of notice demanding such declaration. Secondly, even in respect of the letter dated 17.01.2006, there is no cogent evidence to show that, the same was served either on the first opposite party or on the legal heirs of the deceased.<br /> 13. Lastly, it is contended by the second opposite party that, it has refunded the entire premium amount to the first opposite party. To prove this fact, no documents or other cogent evidence is placed on record.<br /> 14. The most important point that needs to be considered is, whether life of the dead person can be insured. In 3rd paragraph of the complaint, it is stated that father of the complainant died on 18.08.2005. In second paragraph of the complaint, it is stated that father of the complainant Nanjundappa was registered with the first opposite party under TBGR No.62062013 dated 17.10.2005. The complainant in her affidavit also has stated that, her father died on 18.08.2005. Further it is stated in the affidavit that, he was registered with first opposite party on 17.10.2005. Xerox copy of death certificate is produced, wherein the date of death is mentioned as 18.08.2005. Regarding sale of tobacco and deduction of premium, sale note is produced, which is dated 17.10.2005. Hence, according to the complainant, it is clear that father of the complainant died on 18.08.2005, but he was registered with first opposite party on 17.10.2005 after about 2 months from date of death. This fact is also admitted by the opposite parties. The first opposite party specifically stated in the version that, “that as per the memorandum of understanding entered into between Tobacco Board and the second opposite party, the services commenced from 23.08.2005 itself ………….”. Hence, the contract of insurance as per the MOU entered into between first and second opposite parties commenced from 23.08.2005. But, as noted here before much prior to the said date, on 18.08.2005 itself father of the complainant died. Hence, it is crystal clear that, as on the date of the contract regarding insurance, father of the complainant was not alive. Hence, we are of the opinion that, legally and validly Nanjundappa could not have been insured. It is alleged by the complainant that, both opposite parties colluded each others and are playing fraud on the farmers. As noted here before, in spite of fact that much prior to the collection or deduction of the insurance premium and the insurance contract, Nanjundappa was dead and in spite of it, MOU was entered into. It is relevant to note that, the first opposite party has stated in the version that it had issued notices to the second opposite party to settle the claim. But, it did not take note of the fact that Nanjundappa was dead much prior to the insurance contract. Similarly, the second opposite party also though has taken certain contentions regarding repudiation of the claim, has not at all pointed out that, the death of Nanjundappa was prior to the insurance contract. Even, during the course of arguments, either of the parties pointed out, the said aspect. We do not know, whether intentionally that fact was not brought to the notice of the Forum or otherwise. However, for the reason noted above, there being no valid and legal insurance, the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed.<br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly we answer the point in negative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 24th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />