BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Senior Member/Lady Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
Thursday, the 7th day of October 2010
C.C. No. 14 of 2010
Between:
Godugu Sathavva W/o late Anjaiah,
Aged 36 years, Occ: Housewife,
R/o Pullur village, Siddipet mandal of Medak.
….Complainant
And
1. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 5-2-17/2,
Near Bus stand at Sangareddy.
2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
24, Whites Road, Chennai.
……Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 13.09.2010 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri T. Sathya Narayana Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, upon hearing argument of complainant, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, Senior Member/ Lady Member)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties by Complainant alleging that her husband Godugu Anjaiah died on 17th July 2008 due to injuries in an accident which took place at Koti of Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad on 7-7-2008 while attending the duty as contract bus driver in RTC on bus bearing No.AP-28Z-3519 of Musheerabad Depot. That in order to prevent hitting the vehicle, her husband stated to have applied sudden brakes in rash and negligent manner and due to which her husband lost control and fell on the steering wheel of the vehicle and received internal injuries. After completion of duty, he came to Pullur village and took rest for five days. After that he suffered chest pain and was shifted to Siddipet hospital and there from shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad on 17-07-2008 and while undergoing treatment, he expired. On that, the Police, Sultan Bazar registered a case in Cr.No.223/2008 under Section 304(A) IPC and investigated into. The dead body was subjected to post mortem examination and the doctor opined that the cause of death as due to “blunt injury to chest and abdomen”. That the life of said Anjaiah, the deceased was insured by the opposite parties vide policy bearing No.051403/47/98/ 51/00005070 and the same is valid during the period from 15-10-1998 to 14-10-2008.
That, after death of her husband, she approached the opposite parties with all relevant documents and claim papers but the opposite parties closed her claim stating that the same is repudiated as the conductor who performed duty along with the insured confirmed there was no sudden applying of brake or accident on 7-7-2008. The deceased also insured his life with The New India Assurance Company for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same is paid. Hence, filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with interest for the period from death of deceased; to pay legal expenses; to award any other relief or reliefs.
1. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 resisted by the claim of the complainant by filing a counters to the following effect:
The Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed counters denying the death of deceased Godugu Anjaiah on 17-7-2008 in an accident and the nature of treatment undergone by him and also denied the registration of case by the police. It also denied the taking of policy by the deceased for an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- since the same is not tallied with the series. It further alleged that as per domestic enquiry of the Complainant company where Conductor stated that there was no sudden applying of brake or accident that took place on 7-7-2008 is correct on his adducing evidence. The insurance stated to have been obtained by the insured with The New India Insurance Co., Ltd., Kamareddy is different to the insurance in dispute and the same is not binding on these opposite parties. The claim of complainant is fake and no accident took place on 7-7-2008 and the cause of death has no nexus with the death of the deceased. That the complainant created a false story to gain illegally. It also denied the relationship of complainant with that of the deceased and also denied the documents to be incorrect. The claimant has to prove employer and employee relationship before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Court. In cases of rash and negligent manner, the same has to be proved before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The employer of the deceased is necessary party to the complaint. Non-joinder of necessary party, the claim is not maintainable. The accident was not immediately reported before the employer or police concerned. To get compensation and to cause loss to the Ops, the present complaint is filed. That the deceased took leave on the ground of suffering from fever, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
3. Complainant let her evidence in the form of affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents in support of her claim. Whereas the Opposite parties filed the affidavit of Sri M.Ravi Chandra, Divisional Manager and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 documents in support of their claim. Whereas the complainant filed written arguments reiterating the facts in her complaint as well as in her affidavit.
4. The point for consideration is 1) whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim as mentioned in the complaint? 2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim? And if so, to what relief?
5. Ex.A1 is Original cover note issued by the Opposite parties company. Ex.A2 is attested copy of the FIR in Cr.No.223/2008. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of PME of the deceased. Ex.A4 is the original repudiation letter dated 11-05-2009. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of Death Certificate. Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of Family Members Certificate. Ex.A7 is the Xerox copy of Residential bus pass issued by the D.M., APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad valid till 31-07-2008. Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of Andhra Bank card and saving bank account pay in slip. Ex.A9 is the photo showing bandage on the chest of the deceased. Ex.B1 is the Xerox copy of statement stated to be given by R.Srinivas, Conductor. Ex.B2 is the Xerox copy of statement stated to have been recorded. Ex.B3 are the Xerox copy of prescription slip dated 9-7-2008 and 11-7-2008 pertain to Anjaiah.
6. The Opposite parties denied the very issuance of policy stating that it is not tallying with the serial number. Further, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the deceased did not die accidentally and in support of their claim, they filed the documents Exs.B1 to B3, as mentioned above. The Opposite parties further contended that their domestic enquiry revealed that the cause of death of the deceased is not due to accident and that no injuries were received by the deceased as such. The opposite parties also stated that the complainant has got no relationship with the deceased and complainant has to establish the employee and employer relationship of the deceased. The Opposite parties went on to say in their counter that the claim of the complainant has to be made before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour and also before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in case of an accident.
7. On other hand, the complainant exhibited A1 to A9 documents in support of her claim. Ex.A1 goes to show that the deceased took policy from the opposite parties for an assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the same was covered for (10) years in between 15-10-1998 to 14-10-2008. Allegedly, the deceased died on 17-7-2008 due to the injuries stated to have been received on 7-7-2008 accidentally while driving the bus bearing No.AP-28Z-3519 of APSRTC Musheerabad Depot. Ex.A7 goes to show that the deceased G.Anjaiah was employed as Driver in Musheerabad Depot. This was issued on 10-12-2007 by and renewed upto 31-07-2008. The documents exhibited as A5 show that the deceased died on 17-7-2008 at Gandhi Hospital, Monda Market, Hyderabad. Ex.A6 establishes that the complainant herein is the wife of Godugu Anjaiah and this document is issued by the Tahsildar. Ex.A4 stated to have been issued by the opposite parties (which is not in dispute) is addressed to Mr.G.Anjaiah. Admittedly, the death of the deceased G.Anjaiah is not denied by the Opposite parties. If that is so, how the opposite parties addressed the Ex.A4 repudiation letter in the name of G.Anjaiah when the claim was made to them by the complainant herself is quite not understandable. It is the case of the opposite parties that the Conductor who performed duty along with the insured confirmed there was no sudden applying of brake or accident took place on 7-7-2008. If this is believed to be true, there was lot of options left open for the Opposite parties such as to produce the SR (statistical record) pertain to the bus bearing No.AP-28Z-3519 on 7-7-2008 which could be the best possible evidence to falsify the claim of the Complainant but the same is not done. The SR could have certainly contained the name of the driver, name of the conductor, their staff numbers and the route journey of the bus. The opposite parties very vaguely stated that their domestic enquiry revealed that no accident as stated by complainant took place. On other hand, to establish her claim, the complainant filed the copy of FIR, final report, Inquest report and PME pertain to the deceased. The final report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan Bazar PS, Hyderabad clearly states that the Investigating Officer examined the Conductor of the bus with which the incident took place.
8. The documents filed by the Complainant are the public documents and they have got legal sanctity. The PME report clearly shows that the deceased sustained injuries to chest and other parts of the body and the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination over the corpse of the deceased clearly opined the cause of death of the deceased as “blunt injury chest and abdomen”. The Medical officer who conducted PME is an Associate Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad. There is no reason to disbelieve this document marked as Ex.A4. Nothing is brought on record by the Opposite parties to disprove the same. The opposite parties even failed to examine the doctor who gave this opinion. From the perusal of Ex.B1 document, it is evident that one Mr.R.Srinivas, Conductor, 010865 put his signature on 3-11-2008 and it also bears the seal and signature of the Depot Manager, APSRTC, MSRD Depot with date 15-04-2009. There is a big gap in between the telugu written matter and the signature on Ex.A1. This throws doubt in the mind of this Forum as to the very document itself. Ex.B2 is alleged to be the statement given by the same R.Srinivas on 2-11-2008 at 1600 hours at MSRD. If it is believed to be true, why Mr.R.Srinivas put his signature with the date as 03-11-2008 creates doubt. Likewise, the signature of Mr.R.Srinivas found at the second page appears to be at the same place as that of on the first page. In this document too, there is a big gap in between the matter and the signature of the deponent. It is not clear as to who recorded the statement of Mr.R.Srinivas. What made Mr.R.Srinivas to give such statement on 02-11-2008 when the incident alleged to have been took place on 7-7-2008 is not explained. Why said Mr.R.Srinivas put his signature on 03-11-2008 when his statement was recorded on 02-11-2008 is a big question to be answered. A further observation of the said document shows that there are the initials of the Superintendent. In what way the Superintendent is concerned with the recording of statement of Mr.R.Srinivas is a question to be answered. These discrepancies clearly goes to show that the opposite parties failed to establish their claim. The opposite parties were having plenty of options at their hands to disprove the claim of complainant by way of summoning the appropriate officials of the APSRTC. It is also not known what made Mr.R.Srinivas to address Ex.A1 on 3-11-2008. A further perusal of Ex.B2 throws further doubt as to why the statement of R.Srinivas was recorded and who recorded it. What is the authority for the recording authority which directed him to record the statement is also not clear from the very document itself. All this goes to show that to evade payment of claim, the opposite parties produced the documents. The Opposite parties failed to file the copy of policy in question atleast the copy of policy mentioned in their repudiation letter for the reasons best known to them.
9. Except denying the claim of complainant, the opposite parties failed to produce any document to disprove the claim of complainant. The opposite parties did not evince any interest to examine the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the corpse (of the deceased), who would be the best person to speak on the injuries stated to have been found on the body of the deceased. In such absence, there is no other option except to believe the version of complainant. Even otherwise, the documents filed by complainant establishes that the deceased was insured under policy by the opposite parties and the documents viz., FIR, copy of final report, inquest report and post mortem examination clearly show that the deceased died of injuries. The contention of the opposite parties that non-joinder of APSRTC as party to the proceeding is very absurd and laughable. In what way the APSRTC is responsible to the present claim of complainant is not explained. On other hand, employee and employer relation of the deceased is no way concerned with the present claim. The best available evidence with the opposite parties was the copy of policy in question which it withheld to file. In the absence of such evidence, the material available on record has to be believed. There is no reason to disbelieve the Ex.A1 cover-note. It is not the case of opposite parties that it was not issued by their Company except saying that it is not tallying with the serial number. Even the opposite parties failed to file any document to show the serial numbers that were issued by it during certain period. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the Ex.A1 document, which is an original one. In case, the legal heirs of the deceased do make any claim with the employer of the deceased, in respect to service benefits, then the same have to be made with the appropriate Authority under Workmen’s Compensation Act and claims in respect of road accidents, the same have to be made with the MACT (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal). The present claim of complainant does not bar her from claiming compensation covered by the policy. The cause shown by the opposite parties in repudiating the claim is illegal. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on their part. And the Complainant is equally entitled for interest and appropriate compensation.
11. In the result the complaint is allowed and direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (covered by the policy in dispute) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of 11-05-2009, the date of repudiation till realization and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the ordeals undergone by complainant on account of deficient services rendered by opposite parties and causing inconvenience to her together with costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the complaint. Time for compliance: one month.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 7th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
Senior Member/Lady Member Male Member
Copy to
1) The Complainant copy delivered to the complainant/
2) The Opposite party opposite party.Party On ________
3) Spare copy Dis.No. /2010, dt.
