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 /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 357/09 DATED 23.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Srinivasa S/o late J.T. Thimmegowda, R/at K. Javanikuppe Grama, Ravandur Hobli, Doddabellale Post, Periyapatna Taluk.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. D.S. Shivaprakash, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Regional Manager, The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce Government of India) D.No. CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimhaswamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017.<br /> 2. The Branch Manager, Kotak Life Insurance, Seeyar Plaza, 102/04, 1st Floor, 136, Residency Road, Bangalore.<br /> ( By Sri. B. Paneesh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1, Sri. G.V.R, Advocate for O.P2.)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 19.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 23.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 14 Days<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <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.1,86,000/-, the Insurance Policy amount.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts in the complaint, it is alleged that, father of the complainant is Tobacco grower and at the time of selling Tobacco, the first opposite party used to deduct a sum of Rs.1,226.51 paise towards premium. The insured amount was Rs.1,00,000/- under group insurance scheme. On 31.08.2007 father of the complainant died. The opposite parties have not paid the amount to the complainant, who is legal heir of the deceased. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party in the version, admitted certain facts alleged in the complaint, but has contended that, the policy was for a period of one year, from 23.08.2006 to 22.08.2007. After lapse of the policy, father of the complainant died on 31.08.2007. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party has reiterated the contention taken by the first opposite party and further it is contended that, there is no deficiency in service and that there is no privity of contract and that the complaint is not maintainable etc.,.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and for the opposite parties also, the concerned officers have filed affidavits. Certain documents are produced. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that, the policy was valid as on the date of death of his father?<br /> 2. If so whether the complainant has proved that, he is entitled to the relief sought?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : To does not survive.<br /> Point no.3 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:- The fact that, under the group insurance scheme, father of the complainant had paid the premium/was collected in the price of the Tobacco sold and there was insurance is admitted. The opposite parties contend that, the liability of the insurer as per MOU copy of which is at annexure-3, was from 23.08.2006 to 22.08.2007. This fact is not disputed by the complainant. From the certificate of death, it is clear that, the father of the complainant died on 31.08.2007. Hence, the death of the father of the complainant was after the one year period as per MOU. Hence, the opposite parties have contended that, there is no liability on their part. Considering the fact and the material in the record, absolutely, we have no reason to take any contrary view. Learned advocate for the complainant also when questioned regarding the liability of the opposite parties after the said period of one year, did not answer anything. Accordingly, we conclude that, as on the death of father of the complainant there was no valid insurance. Hence, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> 9. Point No.2:- In view of the finding on the first point, this point is not survive for consideration.<br /> <br /> <br /> 10. Point No. 3:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. 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 23rd November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />