This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      29-03-11 in the presence of Sri S.Kalesha, Advocate for complainant and of Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards personal accident claim of her deceased husband with interest @24% and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is the wife of deceased K.Koteswara Rao.  While he alive he was a member of Kuchinapudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd., which obtained group policy to its members with opposite party under policy No.150800/47/08/4300000017 for a period from 24-04-08 to 23-04-09.  On 30-06-08, the complainant’s husband died due to electric shock while attending agricultural work.  It was informed to Advuladeevi PS, who registered the same in Crime No.20/08.  Later the complainant informed the said fact to opposite party and submitted claim form with all relevant record required by opposite party.  But the opposite party sent a letter dt.02-11-09 repudiating the claim of complainant on false, baseless and flimsy grounds.        Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.   Hence, the complaint.

3.      The opposite party filed its version, which is brief as follows:

                The policy was taken by Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Guntur and it is claimed that the deceased Kesana Krishna Koteswara Rao is one of the member in PACS Ltd., Kuchinapudi and that the is having Kisan Credit Card cum passbook.  Both of them are necessary and proper parties to claim. But the complainant is failed to implead them as parties. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                After receiving intimation of death of deceased Kesana Krishna Koteswara Rao, the opposite party appointed Mr.K.Sambasiva Rao, surveyor cum loss assessor to investigate the matter thoroughly and submit his report.  Accordingly, he went to the village of deceased and made enquiries and after thorough investigation, he came to the following conclusions:

1. that family members of the deceased Kesana Krishna Koteswara Rao suspected foul play by step mother and her children and close relative with regard to the Electrocution death of the deceased because of property dispute.
2. The domestic service connection No.95 is in the name of deceased and the location of pump set where the deceased got electrocuted is about 200mts. (650 ft.) away from the switch control in his house.
3. Using of the electricity like this is a clear violation of Electrical rules and regulations to be followed strictly by any law abiding consumer.
4. As such the electrical connection to the particular pump set is an unauthorized one and submitted his report dt.16-06-09.

                The investigation reveals that the said K.K.Koteswara Rao died due to electrocution while doing illegal things/acts.  This comes under exclusions of Kisan Credit Card Scheme policy obtained by Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Guntur – Acts or things not to be done by any insured person risking his life. 

                Basing on the said report, the opposite party repudiated the claim and sent repudiation letter dt.02-11-09 to both complainant and also the Secretary, PACS Ltd., Kuchinapudi.  Under those circumstances, the repudiation of claim made by opposite party is legal, valid and binding.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.             Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ex.A1 to A8 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 to B6 on behalf of opposite party were marked.

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant’s deceased husband is the member of Kisan Credit Card Scheme and policy bearing No.150800/47/08/ 43/00000017 valid from 24-04-08 to 23-04-09 with opposite party company.  According to complaint, the deceased died due to electrocution caused while he was doing agricultural work in the field.  The FIR (Ex.A3) revealed cause of death as ‘electric shock’ and the postmortem report also revealed as ‘cardio respiratory failure due to electric shock’. 

7.             The opposite party repudiated the claim in the light of exclusion clause (g) of Accident Insurance to Kisan Credit Card Holders (Janatha Personal Accident Policy), which reads as follows:

                Provided also that the due observation and fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the this policy (which conditions and all endorsements hereon are to be read as part of this policy) shall so far as they relate to anything to be done or not be done by the insured be condition precedent to any liability of the company under this policy.   

8.             The surveyor’s report revealed that the death of deceased is suspicious and location of pump set where the deceased got electrocuted is about 200mts. (650ft.) away from the switch control in his house.

9.             The inquest report Ex.A4 also revealed that the deceased arranged a water motor at the well which is 200 meters away from the house by giving electric connection from his house having SC No.95 through a wire.  A note of suspicious death is also present in the report.  The family members of deceased are suspecting the deceased’s step mother and her children in the death. 

10.           All the above, the death of the policy holder took place due to electrocution which took place at the unauthorized electric point located outside the premises of the house which is 200 meters away from the switch control in his house.  The unauthorized usage of power is against the rules and regulations of Electricity Act, 2003, which is not to be done by the insured according to exclusion clause (g) of terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation.    

11.           In view of the above discussion, the Forum opines that the complainant is not eligible to receive any claim or compensation from opposite party.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 13^th day of April, 2011.

          Sd/-XXX                      Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT          

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For Opposite party:     

                                                                                               PRESIDENT