F.A.No.917/2012 against C.C.No.774/2011,  Dist.Forum-1, Hyderabad.  

Between:

1.G.Vasu, S/o.Late G.V.Krishna  Rao,

   Aged about  43 years, Occ:Service.

2.Smt. Dr.Sagi Phani Sree,

   W/o.Venkateswara Rao Sagi,

  Aged 37 years

  Occ:Medical Practitioner.                   

  Both residents of H.No.3-6-114,

  Street No.18, Himayatnagar,

  Hyderabad-500 029.                                          …Appellants/

                                                                          Complainants                    And

1.United India Insurance  Co. Ltd.,

   Rep. by its Regional Manager,

   Hyderabad, Regional Office,

   United India Building,

   Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500001.

2. United India Insurance  Co. Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Divisional Manager,

    Divisional Office , Opp:Bus stand

    Kothagudem, Khammam District – 507 117.

3. The Manager,

    The Singareni Arogya Seva Trust,

    Plot No.30, H.No.2-1-205, Road No.3,

    Venkataramana Colony , Nagole,

    Hyderabad – 500 068.                                   …Respondents/

                                                                        Opp.parties

Counsel for the appellants     :   M/s.K.Jagathpal Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents :  M/s. G.Sundara Ramayya-R1 & R2.       

                                               R3-served.

QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT,

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND  DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.

Oral Order:  (per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                                ****

        The  unsuccessful complainants  preferred the appeal, against the order dt.1.10.2012 of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad, made in C.C.No.774/2011.

        The brief case of the complainants is that the complainants are  the son and daughter of the deceased G.V.Krishna Rao,  who was   the Chief Engineer in Singareni Colleries. The employer of  late G.V.Krishna Rao has taken Group Personal Accident Policy with the opposite party  United India Insurance Company Ltd.  in the name of G.V.KIrishna Rao and his wife Smt.Jaya Lakshmi  vide policy no.051700/42/07/03/00000005  dt.20.4.2007  for  Rs.6 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs respectively.

        Unfortunately, on 9.12.2007 the said G.V.Krishna Rao and his family members met with an accident. In the said accident, G.V.Krishna Rao, his grand daughter and his son in law died on the spot and the other inmates of the vehicle were severely injured. The driver of the car also  died on the spot. Smt.G.Jaya Lakshmi,  one of the insured  died on 7.12.2008 at Hyderabad due to the injuries sustained by her in  the accident. The accident was reported to the SHO., Sankameswar  and the police registered  the same  as a case in Crime No.243/2007  on 9.12.2007.

        The complainants made claim application to the opposite parties and  submitted all required   documents for settlement of the claim. The complainants furnished Family Members Certificate, issued by Revenue authorities i.e. Deputy Collector and Thasildar, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy  Dist. Having received the said certificate, the opposite parties are trying to avoid the payments, by demanding the complainants to furnish  some other certificates, without any basis.  The opposite parties without any valid ground,  kept the matter pending, from the date of the claim. The complainants are put to mental agony, having lost their parents in an accident. The opposite parties without valid reason are trying to avoid the payment to the complainants. The conduct of the opposite parties in delaying the settlement of the claim without any valid reason, amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties are liable to pay the claim  amount, together with penal interest, heavy compensation and exemplary costs.   Hence the complaint.

        Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed counter/written version admitting that they have issued Group Personal Accident Insurance  Benefits Policy  vide policy  bearing   no.051700/42/07/03/00000005 and the accidental death of  G.V.Krishna Rao  on 9.12.2007.  They contended that  they have communicated to the complainants several times to obtain Succession Certificate  from the competent Court of law, so as to enable the opposite parties, to proceed  further  in processing of the claim. The complainants did not produce the Succession Certificate , as such, the opposite party  bonafidely waited   all the while,  for a long span of time, but the complainants failed to produce the Succession Certificate. The opposite party issued legal notices,  to the complainants on  16.12.2010 and 5.3.2011  and 18.3.2011 for submission of Legal Heir Certificate and Succession Certificate, but the complainants failed to produce the said certificates. Thus, there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

        Opposite party no.3 filed  its counter/written version contending that this  opposite party is only a  nominal party to the compliant . Opposite party no.3  is E-Seva Trust i.e.  service oriented organization  non profitable  and without any charges etc.  It has been formed to  help the employees  of Singareni Colleries. 

        The said late G.V.Krishna Rao had a policy with opposite parties 1 and 2. When the mother of the complainants late  Smt.Jaya Lakshmi was in coma and undergoing treatment,  a cheque for Rs.1,48,000/-  was arranged and issued for full and final settlement towards the medical claim.   The services of this opposite party are limited to the extent,  when the persons or  insurers  are alive, but once they expired, the services will come to  an end  and the claim of insurance  is to directly claim from the respective insurance companies, but not from this opposite party.  The function of this opposite party is only  to guide claimants  to make claims  and to request the  concerned  insurance companies to process the claim at the earliest. Therefore, there is no   liability or claim of any nature or any kind on this opposite party.   Finally this opposite party prayed to  allow the complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2.

        During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their  case, the complainant no.1 filed his  evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. As against that evidence, on behalf of the  opposite parties 1 and 2 , their authorized signatory Dr.Sanjay Kr. Roy filed his affidavit and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. 

        Upon hearing the counsel for both  parties  and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum disposed of the complaint with an observation, that the complainants  shall submit  the legal heir certificate  to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and on submission of the certificate, the opposite parties 1 and 2  shall   settle the claim of the complainants, as per the terms  and conditions of the policy   within  one month.   The complaint against opposite party no.3 is dismissed .

        Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants  preferred  the above appeal urging that there is no condition in the policy, that after the accident, the parties have to file Succession Certificate  before them to enable them to pay the compensation amount, on the  other hand, the appellants have submitted the Family Members Certificate which  is sufficient for issuance of   claim amount to appellants.  Only to avoid the payment of Rs.9 lakhs, the opposite parties are  creating the  problems.    Therefore, the  impugned  order of the District  Forum may be set aside and the opposite parties 1 and 2 may be directed to pay the amount  covered by the policy i.e Rs.9 lakhs with interest at 24% p.a. from 1.12.2007  till realization, Rs.5 lakhs  towards compensation for mental agony and  also costs of the appeal. 

        We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.

         Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum  is liable to  be set aside as prayed by the appellants/complainants?

        It is not in dispute that the deceased G.V.Krishna Rao and his wife Smt.Jaya Lakshmi were  covered  under the Group  Personal Accident Policy bearing no.051700/42/07/03/00000005  dt.20.4.2007 for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs and for Rs.3 lakhs  respectively.  It is also not in dispute that both of them died in the road accident  that took place on 9.12.2007  near Belgam. The insurance company is not denying its liability under the said policy.  The only dispute in this  case is with regard to submission of Succession Certificate by the complainants to the opposite parties 1 and 2  to settle the two claims. 

The contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that to  settle the two claims, the complainants are required to submit Succession Certificate to prove  their legal right  to claim the insurance amount. Since the complainants failed  to produce the Succession Certificate, inpite of number of letters addressed to the complainants,  to obtain  Succession Certificate, from competent Court and produce the same for settlement of the claim.  Hence the  opposite parties 1 and 2 could not    settle the  claims of the complainants . Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 . 

On the other hand, the contention of  the complainants is that as per  the instructions of the opposite parties 1 and 2,  the complainants produced Family Members Certificate  dt.30.1.2008 issued by the Revenue  authorities  namely   Deputy Collector and Thasildar  and despite complying such instructions, the insurance company insisted for production of Succession Certificate, stating  that after the accident the parties have to  file Succession Certificate before them, then only they will pay the compensation amount,   though there is no such conditions in the policy, only with a view to avoid payment of insured sum which act is illegal and against   law.

  In support  of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants/complainants, placed  his reliance  on the following decisions.

The Supreme Court of India in RUKHSANA vs.  NAZRUNNISA JT 2000(4) SC 346   held that “the amount awarded, as compensation, on account of  a death of individual,  cannot be treated as debt or security  and that the legal heirs of the  person who  was awarded such compensation, cannot be required  to obtain  Succession Certificate”.         

 In the case of AKTHARBIBI ABDUL RAZAK  GULAM RASUL and others vs.  UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.  reported in 2009 ACJ 1823   relying on the  decision of the Apex Court in  Rakshna vs. Nazrunnisa  reported in 2000 AIR SCW 4941,  the Hon’ble High Court of  Gujarath , Ahamadabad held that  no  Certificate was required to be obtained in order to claim the compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act.

 In CHITRAPU CHINABAPANAIAH vs. UNION OF INDIA   reported in  4 ALT 269= AIR(AP) 413 the Hon’ble HighCourt of A.P.   held that “ Succession  Certificate is issuable  only in case of debts or securities payable to a deceased individual.   Section 370  of the   Indian Succession Act  makes it amply clear that the   amount awarded as compensation  to an individual  is never treated as debt or security. Therefore, no succession certificate can be issued  under the said  Act, in relation  to an amount awarded as compensation  to a deceased- claimant” .

        In the light of the above rulings we have no hesitation to hold that the complainants need not submit the succession certification to the opposite parties 1 and 2 for settlement of their claims as the assured amount of the policy is neither  a debt nor a security payable to the deceased . Therefore the opposite parties 1 and 2  are not right in demanding the complainants, to submit succession certificate in order to settle the claim of the complainants, under the policy.   They ought to have   settled the claims, basing on the Family Members Certificate,  issued by the Revenue Authorities. They ought not to have  rejected   Ex.A7  Family  Members Certificate on the ground that the same  is  for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits only.  It is true that in Ex.A7, Family Member Certificate, there is a note that the Certificate is valid for the purpose of  claiming pensionary benefits only.  When the certificate can be used for claiming pensionary benefits, we do not see any reason  why the same certificate cannot be considered, for payment of assured sums, to the legal heirs of the deceased, under the insurance policy. Infact, none of the terms and conditions of the policy says that a Succession Certificate is required to produce for settlement of the claims under the policy.  The opposite parties 1 and 2  have not stated any provision of law, under which they require Succession  Certificates to settle the claims under the policy.   The fact that the complainants are  the son and daughter of both the deceased is not in dispute . It is significant to  note that there are no other claimants.

        For the afore said facts and circumstances, we hold that there is deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties in insisting the complainants, to obtain and submit Succession Certificate, in order to settle the claims and pay the amount. Therefore the impugned order of the  District Forum is not sustainable under law and is liable to be set aside allowing the complaint filed by the complainants.  Since the opposite parties 1 and 2 are  insisting the complainants to obtain and submit Succession Certificate basing on the advise of their counsel, we are not inclined to award any compensation to the complainants as we are going to award interest on the assured sum. 

In the  result appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside, confirming the dismissal order against opposite party no.3. The complaint filed by the appellants/ complainants is allowed, in part, directing the opposite parties 1 and 2  to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs  under the policy to the complainants with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the claim i.e. from 18.2.2008 vide Ex.A8  till the date of realization . The claim of the complainants  for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs is  dismissed. However,  the respondents 1 & 2/opp.parties 1 & 2 are directed  to pay a sum of  Rs.5000/- towards  costs of the complaint and another sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs of this appeal. The respondents 1 & 2/opp.parties 1 & 2  are directed to comply with the order within  four weeks.  

                                                           INCHARGE PRESIDENT

                                                                                                                                   MEMBER

Pm*                                                                                                                         Dt. 22 3.2013