UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD V/S MRS. B.LAKSHMI - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1088/05

MRS. B.LAKSHMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.SRINIVASA KUMAR

21 May 2008

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1088/05

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Kurnool)

1. MRS. B.LAKSHMI

R/O GAYATRI HILLS YAKUTPURA HYD

BEFORE:
	HONABLE MRS. M.SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.1088 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.783 OF 2001 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.

Between:

Mrs.B.Lakshmi,

W/o.B.Hanumantha Reddy

R/o.Gayatri Hills, Yakutpura,

Hyderabad. Appellant/

Complainant

And

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager,

Divisional Office, 3-5-817-818, II floor,

United India Towers, Basheerbagh

Hyderabad-500 029 Respondent/

Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellant:M/s.Koka Srinivasa Kumar

Mr.S.Venugopal

Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.E.Venu Gopal Reddy

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.783/2001 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s husband, who is a bank employee, during his life time subscribed to Group Janata Personal Accident Policy bearing No.050300/47/51/47042/98 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs valid from 15-2-1999 to 14-12-1999. On 17-9-1999 the life assured left his house at 7.00 a.m. to go to Vikrabad to attend for duties and boarded RTC bus near Andhra Jyothi Office and fell down and sustained grevious injuries. The Banjara Hills Police took him to Osmania General Hospital where the life assured died. The complainant submitted a claim by enclosing copies of F.I.R., P.M. report, L.R. certificate etc. but the claim was rejected by the opposite party on untenable grounds. A legal notice was issued to the opposite party on 14-3-2001 for which a reply was issued on 13-4-2001 repudiating the claim, hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs under Group Janata Policy with interest at 12% p.a.

Opposite party filed counter stating that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant as the complainant’s husband is not a direct subscriber. The policy was issued in favour of State Bank of Hyderabad Co-operative Society but the said society was not made a party. They further contended that death is not due to accident and that they thoroughly enquired into the matter and sought expert opinion with regard to admissibility of claim and found that the claim is not tenable and liable to be repudiated. They submitted that they got issued a reply to the legal notice of the complainant and submitted that the panchanama revealed that there were no external injuries on the body and also the expert opinion does not state that the injuries mentioned are consistent with that of fall from the moving bus and hence the death is not due to accident but could be natural death and natural death is not covered and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B8 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal on the brief point that interest was not granted by the District Forum while allowing the complaint. He submitted that the District Forum allowed the case of the appellant/complainant and awarded Rs.5 lakhs and it ought not to have ignored the interest part when it was specifically prayed to award interest in the complaint. He further submitted that the respondent/opposite party repudiated the claim of the appellant/complainant in the year 2001 and ought to have seen the mental agony suffered by the appellant and cannot deprive her right for interest.

We have gone through the material on record. The period of coverage of the policy is not in dispute and the F.I.R. shows that the insured died accidentally due to a fall from RTC bus on 17-9-1999. Thereafter a claim was made and a legal notice was also issued on 14-3-2001 and the respondent repudiated the claim on 13-4-2001. The appellant has filed the complaint on 31-8-2001 and the District Forum has allowed the complaint and passed an award on 17-9-2004 directing the respondent to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant together with costs of Rs.2,000/- but did not award any interest. Having concluded that there is deficiency of service in repudiating the claim, the District Forum ought to have awarded interest on the claim amount. Therefore, we are of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice, interest at 9% p.a. can be awarded on the awarded amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from 13-4-2001 which is the date of reply notice given by the respondent confirming the repudiation till the date of payment of claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified by awarding interest at 9% p.a on the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from 13-4-2001 till the date of payment while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.