BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Wednesday, 7th September 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 01/ 2016
Modupalli Kumari, W/o Late M. Pulla Naidu,
aged about 36 years, Hindu, Housw wife, 2/62-A,
Parnapalli Village, Lingala Mandal, YSR district. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Tadipatri,
Opp. Marketyard Road, Anantapur district.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India,
Arts College Road, Kadapa
3. The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, SC Zonal Office,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 063. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 29-8-2016 in the presence of Sri G. Prabkakara Sastry, Advocate for complainant and Sri G.V. Raghava Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay accidental benefit of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainant for accidental death of her husband, to pay Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and costs of the litigation.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant is the wife of one Modupalli Pulla Naidu, who assured his life under policy No. 653620240 Jeevan Sree policy under the jurisdiction of O.P.2 and the sum assured is Rs. 5,00,000/- and the policy covers Rs. 5,00,000/- towards accidental benefit in addition to the life insurance. The husband of the Complainant Modupalli Pulla Naidu, died in accident of electric shock while he was starting electric motor installed to his filed on 6-2-2013 at about 4.00 p.m. His brother M. Jayakumar gave police report and it was registered in Cr. No. 9/2013 of Lingala Police station under section 174 of Cr.P.C. Post mortem and inquest was held over the dead body of the Modupalli Pulla Naidu and Tahsildar was also enquired into the matter. The station house officer, Lingala police station gave final report by examining six persons and Dr. Raghavendra Kumar, Area Hospital, Pulivendula opined that the deceased died due to electric shock. No foul play with electricity was attributed in final report.
3. After accidental death of Modupalli Pulla Naidu, his wife claimed accidental benefit over the life assured in the above policy. The LIC authorities have paid only Rs. 7,00,000/- towards life insurance and repudiated the claim of accidental benefit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Basing on the latter of Senior Divisional Manager the Complainant made appeal to O.P.3, he also refused accidental death benefit. The senior Divisional Manager O.P.2 opined that the act of the deceased in connecting wire to motor is illegal but he has no valid reason. When the government is giving free supply electricity there is no need to tap electricity by illegal methods. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Opposite party No. 2 filed counter and the same has been adopted by O.P1 and O.P.3 by filing memo. O.P.2 admitted the Complainant is the wife of life assured Modupalli Pulla Naidu under policy No. 653620240 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and it covers accidental death benefit also as pleaded by Complainant but denied their liability to pay accidental death benefit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Since, the life assured died due to electrocution while hooking live wires directly to the electric lines which is an illegal act. The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation) Pulivendula stated the same in his report. As per conditions mentioned in condition No. 10 (ii) (b) (iv) death benefit was not covered when the death occurred as a result from the life assured committing any breach of law. As the life assured got electrocuted while he was hooking electric wires directly to his electric motor which is illegal act death was happened and he committed breach of law. Hence, the claim of Complainant was repudiated. O.P3 also confirmed the same. Thence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A6 documents are marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Ex. B1 to B4 documents are marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and carefully considered the documentary evidence and pleadings of both parties.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant submits that Opposite parties have admitted that the death of the deceased in fields on 6-2-2013 due to electric shock. But they say that the (life assured) death of the deceased occurred while he was hooking electric live wires directly to the electric lines to his motor and touched with wires and died. But no evidence is placed to prove said aspect and even Ex. B1 also does not reveal the said fact to believe the same.
9. He also contends Ex. A1 report of police, Ex. A2 final report by S.I. of Police, Lingala, Ex. A3 post mortem certificate and Ex. A4 death extract clearly goes to show and to prove that the deceased died while he was starting his motor with starter and it was un-accidentally death of electric shock. Therefore, the repudiation of claim by the Opposite parties on the pretext that the deceased died while committing breach of law cannot be accepted and the repudiation is unjust. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
10. Per contra learned counsel for Opposite parties contents though the deceased died in the fields on 6-2-2013 at about 4.00 p.m but he died while hooking live wires directly to the electric line, which is an illegal act and the same has been proved by Ex. B1 report of Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation), Pulivendula and the claim of Complainant under accidental death benefit has been rightly repudiated and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11. In this case it is not in dispute that the Complainant is the wife of Modupalli Pulla Naidu, who had assured his life with LIC of India under jurisdiction of O.P.2 under policy of Ex. B2 and he died on 6-2-2013. It is also not in dispute that the Complainant had made her claim regarding life insurance and accidental death benefit of her husband under the policy of Ex. B2. It is further not in dispute that the Opposite parties paid Rs. 7,00,000/- to the Complainant towards life insurance but repudiated the accidental benefit of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
12. Now it has to be seen whether the repudiation of accidental benefits of Rs. 5,00,000/- by Opposite parties to Complainant is just and reasonable and sustainable. According to the Complainant her husband who is the life assured under Ex. A2 policy died in the fields while he was starting his motor with his starter on 6-2-2103 at about 4.00 p.m. But it is the case of Opposite parties that the husband of the Complainant died while he was illegally connecting electric wires by way of hooking electric live wires to his motor. To prove this aspect the Opposite parties relied on Ex. B1 preliminary report of Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation) Pulivendula. A perusal of Ex.B1 in column 7 & 10 shows while connecting motor wires into electrical hooks at his fields the deceased touched the live wires and electrocuted and accident occurred in the fields. Except the above averments in Ex. B1 the report is bereft details how the Asst. Divisional Engineer came to the conclusion of the same. He did not even mention in his report whether he had examined any witnesses to come to that conclusion. He did not even mention the names whom he had examined to come to that conclusion. Therefore, Ex. B1 cannot be relied to prove that the life assured i.e. husband of Complainant died while he was hooking electric wires and touched with live wires and electrocuted. In column No. 7 it is clearly mentioned that the deceased died in the fields and the accident was occurred in the fields.
13. Coming to the documents of Exs. A1 to A4 filed by Complainant they are crucial to prove her case. Ex. A1 is the report given to police on 6-2-2013 about the death of life assured M. Pulla Naidu, husband of Complainant. A perusal of the above document Ex. A1 clearly reveal that the life assured M. Pulla Naidu was starting his motor with starter and the accident occurred and died. Ex. A2 is the final report of S.I. of Police, Lingala. After he examined witnesses the sub-inspector of police, Lingala gave final report opining that the deceased died due to accidental death of electricity while he was starting his motor with starter. Ex. A3 is the post mortem and inquest report of the deceased M. Pulla Naidu. They reveal that the deceased M. Pulla Naidu died while he started his motor with starter button. The final report Ex. A2 the post mortem and inquest are very crucial and important documents to prove how the death of deceased occurred in this case. They categorically proved that the deceased died due to electric shock while he was starting the motor with his electric starter on 6-2-2013 at about 4.00 p.m. As seen from Ex. B2 policy bond special provision No. 3 relates to accident benefit. As per condition No. 10 (ii) of conditions and privileges will be for an amount of equal to the accident benefit sum assured. In this case the sum assured is Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Opposite parties have already paid the sum assured accrued with bonus to the Complainant. But repudiated the equal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for accident benefit as per special provision No. 3. Since, the life assured deceased M. Pulla Naidu, husband of the Complainant died due to accidental death the repudiation of accidental benefit equal to sum assured by O.P.2 & 3 is not just, reasonable and sustainable. The Opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- towards accidental benefit to the Complainant under policy Ex. B2. But the same was unjustly denied by the Opposite parties to the Complainant, as such we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and the Complainant is entitled for that amount apart from some amount for mental agony and costs. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
14. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the Complainant towards accidental death benefit of her husband and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th September 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 complaint copy to police on 6-2-103.
Ex. A2 Final report of the S.I. of police Lingala, dt. 6-6-2013.
Ex. A3 Post mortem certificate, dt. 7-2-2013.
Ex. A4 Death extracts dt. 18-2-2013.
Ex. A5 Copy of appeal dt. 26-8-2013.
Ex. A6 Acknowledgement of appeal by zonal Manager.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties : -
Ex. B1 Preliminary report of Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation)
Pulivendula. (Original)
Ex. B2 Policy bond bearing No. 653620240 showing conditions of accident
benefit (Original)
Ex. B3 Claim repudiation letter dt. 15-8-2013.
Ex. B4 Letter dt. 29-12-2014 received from our zonal office, (original).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Prabhakara Sastry, Advocate for Complainant
- Sri G.V. Raghava Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P.
