BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 31st December 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 73 / 2015
Smt. Kambham Ramanamma,
W/o Late Rama Chandra Reddy,
aged about 55 years, Hindu, House wife,
Residing at Nanapalli Village, Ukkayapalle Post,
Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India,
Divisional Office, College Road, Kadapa – 516 004.
2. The Manager, Claims Department, LIC of India,
Divisional Office, College Road, Kadapa – 516 004.
3. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa – 516 001. ….. Respondents
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 22-12-2015 in the presence of Sri T. Subramanyam, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is humbly submitted that the son of this complainant namely Kambham Rajani Reddy herein after referred to as insured had taken Jeevana Mitra Policy bearing No. 652847887 from the respondents Corporation for an assured sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- by paying a premium amount of ₹ 4,086/- the said policy commences from 9-5-2002 and date of maturity is 9-5-2027. The premium amounts have to be paid annually for a term of 25 years. This complainant was shown as nominee of aforesaid insured in the said policy.
3. While so on 24-2-2004 the said Rajani Reddy the son of this complainant who is insured was found missing from his in – laws house and to that effect the husband of this complainant and father of Rajani Reddy namely K. Rama Chandra Reddy gave a complaint on 21-1-2005 to G.R. Palli police station of Kadapa district and the same was registered as man missing case in Cr. No. 1/2005. Then the police authorities have investigated into the matter and the then Dy. S.P. submitted a final investigation report to the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram stating that the chances of tracing the missing man are very remote in near future and requested the Hon’ble court to issue proceedings accordingly to treat the case as undetectable in Cr. No. 1/2005 of G.R. Palli police station. The then S.D.P.O, Kadapa also issued proceedings to accord permission to refer the case as undetectable vide proceedings in R.C.No. 230/SDP)-KDP/12 dt. 31-7-2012 based on the final report and proceedings of SDPO the Hon’ble court conducted enquiry by issuing summons to the L.R’s of defacto complainant, who died during the course of enquiry. After conducting due enquiry and perusing the final investigation report the Hon’ble court Kamalapuram accepted the final report and directed to issue proceedings to refer the case undetectable on 7-5-23013.
4. It is settled law under section 108 of India Evidence act, that when a person has not been heard of for seven years the death of a person is to be presumed. Here in this case the son of this complainant has been missed since 24-2-2014 and more than 7 years has been elapsed and as per above said legal presumption that he is died. As stated supra the policy holder missed during the subsistence of policy, since the insured presumed to be died. It is legal obligation to Respondents Corporation to settle the claim of this complainant who was shown as nominee in the policy. The Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kamalapuram also passed an order dt. 7-5-2013 by accepting the proceedings of SDPO after SDPO proceedings this complainant demanded the respondents corporation orally for several times for payment of assured amount by furnishing relevant documents to this complainant, but the respondents corporation postponed to pay the same on one pretext and another. Finally the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 4-7-2015 to the respondents corporation through her counsel demanding them to pay the insurance police amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- by furnishing the relevant documents which discloses that the son of this complainant who is original policy holder missed during the subsistence of the policy. After receipt of legal notice the respondents gave a letter dt. 7-7-2015 to the counsel of complainant stating that the deth claim of the policy will be considered for processing on submission of court order and asked her to contact their Kadapa BO with court order for processing of above claim, and thereafter the complainant went to the respondents corporation with relevant documents and submitted the same. But thereafter the respondents failed to pay the insurance amount to this complainant, in spite of her repeated demands. When the respondents issued life insurance policy to the insured by receiving premium undertaking that they will pay double of the policy amount to the nominee legal heirs of insured in the event of his death, it is their legal obligations to pay the insured amount to the nominee of insured as per the terms of insurance bond. Since the respondents willfully failed to pay insured amount to the complainant who is nominee of said Rajini Reddy insured, it amounts to defect in services of respondents due to the negligent act of the respondents the complainant suffered a lot mentally and monetary. Hence, this complaint.
5. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to direct the respondents jointly and severally to pay the assured amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the complainant with an interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of filing petition will payment and pay sum of ₹ 20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and further sum of ₹ 10,000/- towards costs of this complainant in the interest of justice.
6. Counter filed by R1 and the same was adopted by R2 and R3 that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not expressly admittedly herein by this respondent
7. It is submitted that the respondent has issued a Jeevan Mitra Policy bearing No. 652847887 for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- in favour of Kambam Rajni Reddy, S/o K. Ramachandra Reddy which commences from 9-5-2002 and the complainant K. Ramanamma was mentioned as nominee to the said policy. The allegations that on 24-2-2014 the insured was found missing and a complaint was lodged with G.R. Palli police station, Kadapa and the same was registered as man missing case in Cr. No. 1/2005 under complaint dt. 21-1-2005, are unknown to the respondent. It is also not within the knowledge of this respondent that the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kamalapuram passed an order dt. 7-5-2013 by accepting the proceedings of SDPO. It is false to say that after SDPO proceedings the complainant approached the respondents corporation and demanded orally for the payment of sum assured. It is also false to say that respondent corporation has postponed the payment on one or other pretext.
8. It is submitted that this respondent received a legal notice dt. 4-7-2015 from the counsel of the complainant in which this respondents was called upon to settle the claim on the ground presumption of death under section 108 of Indian Evidence Act. On that this respondent issued a reply notice dt. 7-7-2015 to the counsel of the complainant informing that the death claim under the policy will be considered for processing on submission of court orders the allegation made in the complainant that the respondent corporation willfully failed to pay insured amount to the complainant who is nominee to the policy is false and untenable. All these vague allegations are made by the complainant for the purpose of the case.
9. It is submitted that under section 107 and 108 of India Evidence Act the fact of the death of insured person has to be proved by means of positive evidence. Mere contention that the insured was traceless over 7 years is not helpful to the complainant to make a claim. The complainant has to approach civil court for such a declaration, then only she would be entitled to get insured amount from the respondent corporation. Unless there is a declaration from complainant Civil Court the claim of the complainant is inadmissible. Keeping in view of legal possession, this respondent has rightly requested the complainant to get court order enabling to settle her claim. The said intimation was also passed over to the complainant’s counsel under a letter dt. 7-7-2015 by this respondent. Knowing well about this fact, the complainant rushed to the Hon’ble forum making bad allegations against the respondents. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents in not settling the claim of the complainant. In support of its contention, the respondents corporation relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court which was reported in 2007 (2) ALT Crl. 13 (NRC) = 2007(2) Crimes (PATNA) where in Hon’ble High Court refused to presume the Civil death of a person who is not traceable for 7 years and directed the parties to approach competent civil court for a such a declaration. The said judgement is filed along with counter for kind perusal of the Hon’ble forum. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with costs in the interest of justice.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the
part of the Respondents or not?
iii. To what relief?
11. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A7 were marked and behalf of the respondent Exs. B1 is marked.
12. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Ex. A6 clearly proves that one K. Rajini Reddy had taken Jeevan Mitra Policy bearing No. 652847887 for a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- by paying premium amount of ₹ 4,086/-. The policy commences from 9-5-2002 and the date of maturity is 9-5-2027. The complainant was shown as nominee of the policy. Ex. A1 clearly proves missing of the man i.e. K. Rajini Reddy. Ex. A1 was registered on 21-1-2005 under Cr. No. 01/2005 of G.R. Palli Police station. Ex.A2 is final investigation report submitted to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamalapuram stating that the man was undetectable vide proceedings RC No. 230/SDPO-KDP/12, dt. 31-7-2012. Ex.A3 clearly proves that the case in Cr. No. 01/2005 under man missing of G.R. Palli Police Station was referred as “U.N”. Ex. A2 is submitted by the Inspector of police, G.R. Palli police to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamalapuram stating that the man was undetectable. Ex. A4 is legal notice dt. 4-7-2015 issued by the complainant to the respondents 1 to 3 for the same Ex. A5 is reply from the respondents stating that the death claim of the above policy considering for processing of submission of court order. Exs. A1, A2 and A3 clearly proves that the man Rajini Reddy was undetectable and under section 108 of Indian Evidence Act when the person has not been more than 7 years the death of person is to be presumed. As per Ex. A1 the case under Cr. No. 01/2005 was registered at G.R. Palli Police station on 21-1-2005. So the past ten years the man was undetectable by the police and proceedings was filed through Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. So it is settled law under section 108 of Indian Evidence Act when the person has not been here for seven years the death of person is to be presumed. Ex. A2 & A3 proves the same. So in these circumstances the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her. At the same time there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 to 3.
13. Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization, to pay ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and to pay ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 31st December 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex: A1 Certified copy of FIR in crime No.1/2005 G.R.Palle P.S.,
Ex: A2 Certified copy of final report,.
Ex: A3 Certified copy of Docket order in R.C.No.14/2013 in Crime
No.1/2005.
Ex: A4 Office copy of legal dated. 4/7/2015.
Ex: A5 Replay letter dated.07/07/2015.
Ex: A6 P/c of policy in the name of K.Rajini Reddy.
Ex: A7 Acknowledgement cards 3 in numbers.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents.
Ex: B1 P/o Letter dt 7/7/2015 issued by the3 respondent to the
Counsel of complainant.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri T. Subramanyam, Advocate for complainant.
- Sri G. Trivikram singh, Advocate for respondents.
B.V.P. - - -
