IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 21st day of July, 2020
Filed on 21.12.2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.343/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Krishnakumari 1. Reliance General Insurance
W/o Vasudevan Nair Co. Ltd
Residing at Thekkepavoor 1st Floor, Vishnu Building
Thottuvathala, K.P.Vallon Road,
Nedumudi.P.O ,Alappuzha Kadavanthara, Ernakulam.
(Adv.Joseph Mathew)
2. Reliance General Insurance
Co.Ltd, 1-83/3/13/40 TO 42/KS/301, 3rd Floor,
Krishe Sapphire, Madhapur Hyderabad.
Rep. by its Manager
3. Reliance General Insurance
Kabeer Plaza Building
Mullackal.P.O, Vadakanal
Alappuzha.
(Adv. C.Muraleedharan by
OP 1 to 3)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Averments in the complaint briefly stated are as follows:-
Sreejesh who is the son of the complainant was working in Muscat and had taken a policy from the 1st opposite party by name Reliance Pravase Bharathiya Bima Yojana 2006 having No.1108542815152659 for Rs.10,00,000/-. The period was from 20.02.2014 to 19.02.2016 and the premium amount was paying without any default. Complainant was the nominee in the said policy. On 05.09.2014 Rajesh died in a motor accident and the complainant applied for the insurance claim by producing all the required documents. However opposite parties issued notices demanding more documents. The demanded documents were already produced. However a repudiation letter was sent to the complainant rejecting the claim. It was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by which complainant sustained mental agony. Opposite party purposefully repudiated the claim. Hence the complaint is filed claiming policy amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12 % and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony.
2. Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
It is true that opposite parties have served 3 remainders to the complainant on 02.05.2017, 16.06.2017 and 16.09.2017 requesting her to produce two documents.
(1) Police accident report from Sulthan ate of Oman
(2) Contract of employment of the deceased with the
employer.
But the complainant could not provide those documents and hence remainder cum closure notice was issued. Notice rejecting the claim was not issued. The complaint is filed suppressing real facts and hence it may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest being the amount of personal accident claim from the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony?
- Reliefs and costs?
- Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A17 series from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
5. Point No.1 and 2
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together.
The case of PW1 who is the complainant in this case is that her son Sri. Sreejesh had taken Reliance Pravase Bharathiya Bima Yojana 2006 life insurance policy for Rs. 10,00,000/- on 20/2/2014 and the period was up to 19/2/2016. He was paying the premium regularly and the complainant was the nominee. While employed in Muskat on 5/9/2014 Sri. Sreejesh died in a road traffic accident. Complainant filed a claim petition by producing all the required documents. However opposite parties sent letters to produce certain other documents and finally a letter was sent repudiating the policy. Hence the complainant has approached the Forum for getting the above mentioned reliefs. Opposite party 1 to 3 filed a joint version admitting the policy. Their only contention is that they required policy accident report from Sulthanate of Oman and contract of employment of the deceased with the employer for which they had sent 3 reminders on 2/5/2017, 16/6/2017 and 16/9/2017. Since the documents were not produced amount was not released to the complainant. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext. A1 to A17 series. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
The fact that Sri. Sreejesh who was working in Muskat had a life insurance policy for Rs.10,00,000/- with the opposite parties is not in dispute. Sri.Sreejesh was paying the premium regularly and while so he met with a road traffic accident and succumbed to the injuries on 5/9/2014. Being the nominee PW1 approached the opposite parties with the necessary documents. Opposite parties demanded two more documents and certain reminders were sent for the same. Since the documents were not produced the amount was not disbursed to the complainant. In the version it is stated that Police accident report from Sulthanate of Oman and contract of employment of the deceased with the employer are necessary. As discussed earlier opposite parties have no dispute that deceased Sreejesh was the insured and that the policy was live on 5/9/2014 that is on the date of his death. It is also not disputed that PW1 who is his mother was the nominee. PW1 claims that she has produced all the necessary documents before the opposite parties. However according to the opposite parties two more documents were required since it was not produced the amount was not disbursed. PW1 has produced Ext.A1 to A17 documents. Now the only question to be looked into is whether two documents demanded by the opposite parties are necessary to disburse the claim amount. The 1st document sought by the opposite parties is police accident report from Sulthanate of Oman. Ext.A7 is a copy of Embaming and sealing certificate issued by the Royal Oman police. In Ext.A7 the cause of death is shown as road traffic accident. In Ext.A8 is a copy of Certificate Regarding Contents of Coffin and Sealing of the Container issued by Royal Oman Police. In Ext.A8 also the cause of death is shown as Road Traffic Accident. So from Ext.A7 and A8 it is pellucid that Sri. Sreejesh Vasudevan Nair who is the deceased in this case died due to Road traffic accident. These two documents are seen issued by Royal Oman Police.
The 2nd document sought by the opposite parties is contract of employment of the deceased with the employer. Ext.A10 is a copy of document issued from Embassy of India. In Ext.A10 it is stated that Sri. Sreejesh Vasudevan Nair was under the sponsorship of M/s Al-abar Int,l glass and Aluminium, PB No. 6863 PC 111 SEB, Sulthanate of Oman. So from Ext.A10 it is crystal clear that he was sponsored by M/s Al-abar Int,l glass and Aluminium. Though these documents are produced before the opposite parties they are withholding the claim seeking two more documents which are the police accident report from Sultanate of Oman and contract of employment of the deceased with the employer.
Ext.A1 is the policy document in which also it is stated that the name of the employer Al-abar Int,l glass and Aluminium LLC. When examined before court on 16/11/2018 PW1, the mother of the policy holder was aged 68. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner informed that deceased is the only son of PW1. The fact that Sri.Sreejesh died while he was working in Oman is not in dispute. As stated earlier Ext.A7 and A8 documents shows that Sri.Sreejesh died in a road traffic accident. Ext.A10 shows that he was under the sponsorship of M/s.Al-abar Int,l glass and aluminium. We cannot expect a 68 year old lady to go to Oman and get the required details. Ext.A1 shows that it is a life policy and the coverage is Rs. 10,00,000/- for personal accident of the injured person. The fact that Sri. Sreejesh died in a road traffic accident is not disputed. In such circumstances it is not known as to why the opposite parties are withholding the policy amount raising unnecessary contentions. It is pertinent to note that though the opposite parties filed a joint version none of them entered the witness box to prove their case on oath. So an adverse influence can be drawn. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant necessary documents to prove that it was a road traffic accident are produced by PW1. The documents are issued from Royal Oman Police and there is no reason to suspect it genuineness. In fact cause of death is not disputed also. As stated earlier PW1 is an age old lady and she lost her only son in the accident. The policy amount is Rs.10,00,000/-. The accident occurred on 5/9/2014 and still policy amount has not reached the beneficiary. The policy period is from 20/2/2014 to 19/2/2016 and Sri.Sreejesh died on 5/9/2014. It appears that opposite parties are delaying the payment by taking unnecessary contentions. Though the policy holder died on 2014 even today that is in 2020 the beneficiary was not able to enjoy the fruits of the policy. It appears that opposite parties are clinging on super technicalities for withholding the payment. As stated earlier it is to be remembered that PW1 is now aged about 68 years and delay of payment even for the single day will cause great hardship to her.
No it is well settled by various judicial pronouncements that a person who is responsible for delayed payment is liable to pay interest. “AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3098, Thazhatheypurayil Saradi vs. Union of India 2011 (4) KLT 671Chand Muhammad Vs. Zeenath & Another. Since the opposite parties withhold the payments on lame excuses complainant is entitled for compensation, became there was deficiency in service. These points are found accordingly.
Point No.3
In the result complaint is allowed.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint that is on 21/12/2017 till realization from opposite parties.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
- Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs. 10000/- as costs from the opposite parties.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 21st day of July, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Krishnakumari(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Policy schedule
Ext.A2 - Copy of Affidavit sworn before the Insurance company.
Ext.A3 - Copy of Certificate of Death.
Ext.A4 - Copy of Final Reminder cum closer without Prejudice.
Ext.A5 - Copy of Reminder letter without Prejudice.
Ext.A6 - Copy of News paper cutting.
Ext.A7 - Copy of Embalming & Sealing Certificate.
Ext.A8 - Copy of Certificate Regarding Contents of Coffin & Sealing of the
Container.
Ext.A9 - Copy of Certificate Regarding Absence of Any Quarantinable or
Infectious Disease at the time of Death.
Ext.10 - Copy of Embassy of India.
Ext.A11 - Copy of Certificate from Bureau of Immigration (Govt. of India)
Ext.A12 - Copy of Consignment Security Declaration.
Ext.A13 - Copy of Documents Above Perforation.
Ext.A14 - Copy of Death Notification
Ext.A15 - Copy of Police Report
Ext.A16 - Copy of Documents
Ext.A17series - Attested copy of Documents.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
