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 /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 384/09 DATED 24.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Prasanna S/o late Thangamma & Nanjegowda, R/at Handrangi, Konanur Hobli, Arkalagudu Taluk, Hassan District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. P.R., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Regional Manager, The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India), D.No. CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017.<br /> 2. The Manager, TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd., Khanija Bhavana, 5th Floor, West Entrance, Race Course Road, Bangalore. <br /> ( By Sri.B.P.K. for O.P.1, Sri. A.K.J for O.P.2 Advocate,)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 20.10.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 24.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 20 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,10,000/-, the insurance amount with interest and damages.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that, mother of the complainant by name Thangamma was registered Tobacco grower with first opposite party vide Reg. No. TBGR No.7076071 dated 15.12.2005. She used to grow Tobacco and sell the same to the first opposite party at Periyapatna every year. At the time of selling Tobacco, the first opposite party used to deduct a sum of Rs. 460/- from every farmer in order to remit the same to the 2nd opposite party towards yearly premium amount for the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the Group Insurance Scheme. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party has deducted a sum of Rs.460/- out of the Tobacco sale price of the complainant and remitted the same to the 2nd opposite party. Mother of the complainant died on 23.04.2006. It was informed to the opposite parties with a request, to disburse the amount under the Group Insurance Scheme. The opposite parties have not chosen to make payment colluding each others to squat the money of poor farmers. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite partie, they went on saying that the insured amount will be disbursed shortly. But till today the amount is not disbursed. It amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party, in the version admitted most of the facts alleged in the complaint and stated that as per the Memorandum of Understanding between this and the 2nd opposite party, the second opposite party collected Rs.1,65,40,920/- towards the premium amount, which includes the premium of deceased Thangamma. On the request of the family members of the deceased Thangamma, legal notices were sent by this opposite party to second opposite party, calling upon to settle the claim. The 2nd opposite party has not settled the claim. The 2nd opposite party is responsible for settlement of the claim. There is no deficiency on the part of this opposite party. Certain other allegations are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party in the version has contended that, the complaint is not maintainable as he has not declared that the complainant is the only legal heir of Thangamma. The age of Thangamma was mentioned by the 1st opposite party as 43 years on the effective date of policy. Hence, the policy coverage was provided. When this opposite party received claim through first opposite party, it was found from the documents, the age of deceased was above 60 years. On the basis of this misstatement of age, the claim is declined. As per the Memorandum Of Understanding, if the insured is 60 years above as on the policy effective date, a health declaration is must. No such health declaration was filed. That fact was intimated to the 1st opposite party and thereafter refunded the premium amount. It is contended that, no legal notices were received by this opposite party from the first opposite party. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the 1st opposite party, the Regional Manager and for the 2nd opposite party, Authorized Signatory, have filed their affidavits. Some documents are produced. We have heard the arguments of the advocate for the complainant as well as both the advocates for opposite parties and perused the record.<br /> <br /> 6. For the complainant an application Under Section 5 of the limitation of the Act is filed, to condone the delay if any. In the accompanying affidavit amongst other facts, it is stated that, the first opposite party was mediator between the Thangamma and the second opposite party and request was made for payment of the policy amount, which was assured but till today the opposite parties colluding each other playing fraud not paid the amount. This fact is not denied by the opposite parties by filing objections. Hence, under the circumstances, in the interest of justice the delay is condone.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 9. Point no. 1:- As noted here before, most of the facts are admitted, including that the deceased was covered by the policy under the Group Insurance Scheme during the relevant period and premium was collected.<br /> <br /> 10. The 2nd opposite party contended that, it declined the claim on the ground of misstatement of age of the deceased. But, it is not made out by the 2nd opposite party that, the person of the particular age could not have been covered by the policy under Group Insurance Scheme.<br /> <br /> 11. Then, it is contended by the 2nd opposite party that, if the insured is 60 years and above, on the effective date of particular policy, health declaration is must, but in the case on hand, no such declaration was filed. In this regard, further it is stated that, an intimation to the first opposite party was sent as per the letter dated 27.07.2006, but the declaration was not filed. To prove that in fact such letter was served on the first opposite party, no evidence for the 2nd opposite party produced. However, for second opposite party computerized documents are produced, wherefrom it cannot be established that, a letter was served on the 1st opposite party. So also no such intimation was served on the deceased or the claimant.<br /> <br /> 12. It is one of the contentions of the 2nd opposite party that, since it declined the policy, the premium was refunded. To prove this fact, no acceptable evidence is placed on record.<br /> <br /> 13. As regards, the contention of the 2nd opposite party that, complaint is not maintainable because, no declaration is made by the present complainant that, he is the only legal heir of the deceased, in this regard, as contended, no declaration is filed, but Xerox copy of Ration Card is produced. In view of the same, it is found that, in addition to the present complainant there are other legal heirs. Hence, making an observation that, other heirs also submit the voucher at the time of receiving the amount, will meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> <br /> 14. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 15. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The second opposite party is directed to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of claim petition, within two months from the date of the order, for which voucher of legal heir shall be submitted by the complainant.<br /> 3. The second opposite party further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- compensation towards mental agony and other inconvenience caused, to the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10%. For this also, the complainant shall submit vouchers along with other legal heirs of the deceased.<br /> 4. So also the second opposite party shall pay Rs.2,000/- cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 5. 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 /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />