Date of Filing: 25.05.2012
Date of Disposal: 22.02.2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 22nd day of February, 2013
C.C.No.25/2012
Between:
A.lakshminarayanamma,
W/o late A.Narayanaswamy,
D.No.1/27, Danduvaripalli(V),
B.K.Samudram Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainant
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
D.No.15/130, 1st Floor, Subash Road,
Anantapur. … Opposite Party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.C.Ramkumar, Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards Janatha Personal Accident Insurance policy amount and Rs.25,000/- towards delay and mental agony with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is the wife of one late Aravati Narayanaswamy S/o late Chinna Sheshaiah, residing at Danduavaripalli, B.K.Samudram Mandal, Anantapur District. The complainant’s husband died on 22.04.2011 due to injuries caused in a fire accident at his home which occurred on 30.03.2011 at about 5.00 P.M. while transferring petrol from 2 liters bottle to 1/2 liter bottle by keeping a burning candle on a sewing machine as there was no electricity at that time. In the process of transferring petrol accidentally the petrol fell on the hands and legs of the deceased which caused the fire accident. After the fire accident the complainant’s husband was admitted at Government General Hospital, Anantapur and from their he was shifted to Abaya Kidney Care Centre where he succumbed to burn injuries on 22.04.2011 at about 3.15 P.M. Subsequently the wife of the deceased reported the same to the police of B.K.Samudram which was registered and investigated by the police. The professor, Head Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Anantapur, who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to septiceaemia which was the result of burn injuries, a final report was filed by the police before the Tahsildar and execute Magistrate of B.K.Samudram in which it was reported that the death was accidental death due to burns and there is no foul play in the death of the deceased.
3. Subsequently the complainant made a claim under Janatha Personal Accident Policy as the deceased is a K.C.C. holder under claim No.051004/47/10/43/90000088 which was repudiated by the opposite party letter dt.09.02.2012 stating the reasons as the complainant did not comply with the required papers/documents. Hence, the complainant filed this case claiming a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.
4. Counter filed on behalf of the opposite party stating that the death of the deceased in the said incident on the said date does not come under the purview of Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy and that the manner, in which, the whole incident took place cannot be termed as an incident and as such the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation under the said contract of insurance. The said incident took place only due to the gross negligence on the part of the deceased himself and the said negligent and deliberate act of the deceased does not come under the purview of an accident as the deceased himself was responsible for the said incident. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Further the opposite party submits that there is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the opposite party about the said incident in question resulting in the death of the deceased and the complainant has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy. Hence, the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The opposite party submits that as seen from the record of police investigation and other material record knowing fully well that the petrol is highly inflammable substance, the deceased tried to transfer petrol from 2 liter capacity bottle into ½ liter capacity bottle that too in the light of the burning candle which resulted in a fire accident due to which the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries while undergoing treatment. The complainant is put to strict proof that she is the nominee and the said policy and she is the only legal heir to claim the compensation. The opposite party further submits that under the contract of insurance if any and prove the claim would be tenable under the head “ sum insured” only, if it is proved that the opposite party is liable to pay any compensation under the said contract of insurance. There is no scope to seek any claim under other heads. The allegation that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said contract of insurance is hereby denied as not correct. In fact the sum assured under the said contract of insurance is only Rs.50,000/- but not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the insured M/s The Anantapur Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur and M/s The Chiyyedu PACS Limited, Anantapur are not added as parties to the proceedings and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B9 documents.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT: - It is an admitted that the deceased is a K.C.C. account holder and he is insured under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per Ex.B1 document. The complainant’s husband died due to burn injuries in the fire accident which occurred on 30.30.2011 while transferring petrol from one bottle to another under the light of candle which was placed on a sewing machine in the process of transfer some petrol fell on the hands and legs of the deceased then the deceased pushed the sewing machine in order to save he sewing machine from burning. And in the process the petrol fell and caught fire to the deceased. Subsequently the deceased was admitted to the Government General Hospital, Anantapur and from their he was shifted to Abaya Kidney Care Centre for better treatment. But the deceased die due to burn injuries on 22.04.2011 the same was reported to the police and F.I.R. was registered on 22.04.2011 which was marked as Ex.A1 and the inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased on 23.04.2011 which is marked as Ex.A2. The postmortem was conducted on the deceased body on 23.04.2011 which is marked as Ex.A3 and in the Ex.A3 doctor opined that the death was due to septiceaemia due to burn injuries of 64%. The police conducted investigation and made a final report to the Tahsildar and execute Magistrate of B.K.Samudram which is marked as Ex.A4 and in the said final report the police have requested to accord permission to refer the case as action dropped in the said final report. It is clearly mentioned that the panchyatdars and witness examination corroborated with the version of F.I.R. in all material facts and the unanimous opinion of the panchayadars is that the deceased died due to receiving accidental burn injuries which was caused filling the petrol to his TVS XL by transferring petrol from 2 liter bottle to ½ liter bottle in the light of candle due to failure of electricity. This report establishes that the incident occurred accidentally while transferring petrol from one bottle to another bottle. Ex.A7 is the family member’s certificate issued by the Tahsildar, B.K.Samudram.
10. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the incident took place only due to gross negligence on the part of the deceased himself due to the negligent and deliberate act of the deceased K.C.C. holder does not come under the purview of the accident. As the deceased himself was responsible for the said incident. There is abnormal delay in giving intimation to the company about the said incident which resulted in the death of the deceased K.C.C. Policy holder. Hence, there is gross violation of the terms and conditions of the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy to K.C.C. holders.
11. After hearing the arguments of the complainants counsel and the opposite party counsel and after perusing the above said documents. We are convinced that though there is delay in intimation of the death to the opposite party as the complainant came to know that her husband is a K.C.C. holder and he is covered under insurance policy only through some villagers. Hence, the complainant made a claim after a delay of nearly six months from the date of the death. ExB2 clearly establishes this fact.
12. The arguments by the opposite party that the incident occurred only due to negligence and deliberate act of the deceased is nothing but violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy can not be take into consideration as the deceased was injured in the fire accident. While transferring petrol from 2 liter bottle to ½ litter bottle in the light of burning candle and in the process some petrol spilled on the hand and legs of the deceased which caused fire accident and subsequently the complainant’s husband died due to burn injuries is only an accident and not a negligent and deliberate act of the deceased as argued by the opposite party counsel. Hence we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the deceased died accidentally in the fire accident but not due to his negligence and deliberate act. Further we are satisfied with the argument of the complainant’s counsel that the delay was not intentional and as soon as the complainant knew through some villagers that her husband was a loanee and a K.C.C. holder and that she can claim under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy amount. And immediately she informed and made a claim to the opposite party. Hence the delaying in informing the opposite party is not an impediment. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay insurance claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the insurance policy document filed by the opposite party which is marked as Ex.B1 where it is clearly mentioned that the sum assured is Rs.1,00,000/- for insured person.
13. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards assured amount with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 22nd day of February, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1Attested copy of F.I.R. in crime No.71/2011 of B.K.Samudram P.S.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of inquest report relating to deceased A.Narayanaswmay.
Ex.A3 Attested copy of postmortem report relating to the deceased A.Narayanaswamy.
Ex.A4 Final report submitted by Sub-inspect of police B.K.Samudram to Mandal
Tahsildar and executive magistrate, B.K.Samudram.
Ex.A5 Office copy of the legal notice dt.28.03.2012 got issued by the complainant to
the opposite party.
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgement signed by the opposite party.
Ex.A7 Attested copy of Family members certified relating to the Late
A.Narayanaswmay issued by the Tahsildar, B.K.Samudram.
Ex.A8 Death certificate relating to A.Narayanaswamy issued by the Anantapur
Municipal Corporation.
Ex.A9 Attested copy of loan borrowers of Chiyyedu P.A.C.S.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme policy issued by the opposite
party in favour of the Anantapur District Co-operative central Bank
Limited, Anantapur.
Ex.B2 Claim intimation letter dt.21.10.2011 submitted by the complainant to
the opposite party.
ExB3 Repudiation letter dt.09.02.2011issued by the opposite party to the
ADCC Bank Limited, Anantapur.
Ex.B4 Letter dt.09.02.2011issued by the opposite party to ADCC Bank Limited,
Anantapur.
Ex.B5 Reply notice dt.19.04.2012 got issued by the opposite party to the counsel for
the complainant.
Ex.B6 postal acknowledgment singed by the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.B7 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.71/2011 of B.K.Samudram P.S..
Ex.B8 Attested copy of inquest report relating to deceased A.Narayanaswmay.
Ex.B9 Final report submitted by Sub-inspect of police B.K.Samudram to Mandal
Tahsildar and executive magistrate, B.K.Samudram.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
