CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
1
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM AT DAVANGERE
C.C.No.127/2010
DATED 18th day of March – 2011
PRESENT:
SRI. T. NANJAPPA, B.A., LL.B., : PRESIDENT
SMT. MANJULA BASAVALINGAPPA, B.Sc. : MEMBER
@@@
COMPLAINANT:-
Smt Shashikala D/o Kariyappa H.M.,
42 Years,
R/o 3rd Main, 9th Cross,
Housing Board Quarters,
Vinobanagara,
Davangere-577004.
(Sri. L.K.P., Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENTS:
1. The Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Davangere-577002.
2. The Deputy Divisional Manager (PLI),
Karnataka Circle,
Bangalore-560001.
(Sri.C.G.R., Advocate for Opponents 1 & 2 )
@@@
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
2
JUDGEMENT BY : SRI T. NANJAPPA, PRESIDENT
@@@
: ORDERS :
@@@
Alleging deficiency in service by the opponents
complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer
Protection Act, seeking a direction to the opponents to pay sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% and compensation of
Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and cost.
2. Allegations made in the complaint are as under;
Complainant is the Sister of deceased H.K. Sujatha, who
was working as Junior Health Assistant at PHC, Hadadi in
Davanagere Taluk. Deceased had taken Postal Life Insurance
Policy bearing No.KT 367590-CS Dt.22.1.08 for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- from 2nd opponent through 1st op. Complainant is
the nominee under the said policy. On 17.7.08 the insured (H.K.
Sujatha) met with an accident (While going to her Office riding
KA-17V-7223 Honda Activa) and died on the spot. Case in
Crime No.82/08 was registered by Hadadi Police. In her
capacity as nominee the complainant made a claim which was
repudiated by 2nd op as per its letter dt.29.10.10 on the false
ground that premium for the months of February and April-
2008 (2nd and 4th Premium) were paid deliberately and
certificate of Good Health and Employer’s Certificate regarding
Medical Leave were not produced. According to the
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
3
complainant the policy was in force on the date of death of
insured H.K. Sujatha and that the opponents have committed
deficiency in service by refusing to pay the sum assured. Hence
this complaint.
3. Both opponents entered through District Government
pleader. 1st op has filed version which was adopted by 2nd op. In
the version 1st op has admitted Postal Life Insurance policy
bearing No.KT 367590-CS was issued in the name of Smt H.K.
Sujatha for Rs.1,00,000/-, nomination in favour of complainant
death of H.K. Sujatha in the accident and the repudiation of the
claim. It is the case of the 1st op that it was the duty of the
insurer to pay the monthly premium regularly, that in terms of
conditions 5-6 of the policy, that the insurer was expected to pay
the premium in advance on the first day of every month or
within grace period (Last day of the same month), that the
deceased had belatedly paid the premium for the months of
February and April-2008 beyond the grace period and therefore
her policy was treated as lapsed, that as the policy was not in
force on the date of deat of the insured, the claim made by the
complainant was rightly repudiated and that there was no
deficiency in service.
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
4
4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed
her affidavit (PW.1) and relied on Exs.A1 to 9. On the other
hand Opponents have not adduced any evidence either oral or
documentary. Heard arguments of Complainant’s Counsel and
DGP.
5. Now, the following points arise for our consideration
and determination in this complaint;
1. Whether the policy taken by the deceased H.K.
Sujatha was in force on the date of her death?
2. If so, Whether there was Deficiency in service on the
part of opponents?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs
prayed in the complaint?
4. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
(1) Affirmative
(2) Affirmative
(3) Partly Affirmative
(4) As per final order.
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
5
: REASONS :
Points 1 to 3:-
7. Opponents have repudiated the claim on the ground
that the premium for the months of February and April-2008
were paid belatedly. Ex.A6 is the Premium Receipt Book
issued by the 1st opponent. It reveals that premium for the
month of February-2008 was paid on 15.3.08 and premium for
the month of April-2008 was paid on 28.5.08.
8. It was argued on behalf of the opponents that the
insured was expected to pay premium in advance on the 1st of
every month and the grace period allowed to pay the premium
was up to the end of the same month. Reliance was placed on
condition no.5 of “terms of the contract” which reads as under;
“ The premium shall be paid in advance
on the 1st of each month. However, the grace
period is allowed upto the last working day of
the month.”
Above condition supports the contention of the opponents
that the premium for the months of February and April 2008
were not paid within the period fixed. For the following
reasons we are of the opinion that the repudiation of the claim
is not justified. Firstly, in Ex.A6 (premium receipt book)
instructions are given to the insured regarding the payment of
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
6
premium, place and manner of payment of premium, right to
raise loan and the manner in which claim shall be made.
Second instruction in Ex.A6 reads as under;
“Premia is payable on or before last day
of each month (1st April Incase of march) at
Post Office selected by the insurant for the
payment of premia. Incase of last day of month
being holiday the premium shall be paid on the
last working day of month. A fine at 12% per
annum subject to minimum amount of Rupee 1
will be realise on delayed payment.”
9. From the above said instruction it is clear that insured
is entitled to make belated payment subject to payment of
penalty at 12% per annum. Ex.A6 further reveals that 1st
opponent has collected penalty of Rs.5/- in respect of belated
payment of premium for the month of February and penalty of
Rs.5/- in respect of belated payment of premium for the month
of April. So far as the premium for the month of February is
concerned there was delay of 15 days and in respect of the
premium for the month of April there was delay of 28 days.
Penalty on premium of Rs.435/- was less than Rs.5/-. However,
the 1st opponent has collected the premium for the months of
February and April 2008 along with penalty as per instruction
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
7
no.2 of Ex.A6. If the policy was lapsed as contended by the
Counsel for the opponents, because the premium for the month
of February was not paid by the end of the month, there was
no reason for the 1st op to collect the premiums for the months
of March, April, May and June. There is absolutely no
explanation what so ever from the opponents as to why the
premium for the months of March, April, Many and June was
collected if the policy was lapsed on expiry of last day of
February-2008.
10. Secondly, Ex.A2 is the repudiation letter dt.29.10.08.
This document reveals that the 2nd op has not repudiated the
claim on the ground that the policy was lapsed. However, it
was argued on behalf of the opponents that after paying
penalty for belated payment of premium for the months of
February and April 2008, the insured ought to have submitted
the certificate of Continued Good Health in the prescribed
Proforma and also Certificate from her Employer to the effect
that she had not taken any kind of leave on medical grounds
and therefore the mere payment of penalty will not result in
reinstatement of lapsed policy. This argument is devoid of
merit for the following reasons;
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
8
a) As already stated above the opponents did not treat the
policy as lapsed one. Therefore, the question of reinstatement
or revival of the policy does not arise.
b) Complainants produced copy of the policy which does
not contain terms and conditions. Of course, opponents have
produced the copy of “terms of contract” which is on separate
sheet. It is not the case of the opponents that the terms of the
contract were made known to the insured and that she had
agreed to each and every term of contract. “Terms of contract”
of insurance which were not brought to the notice of the
insured will not bind her.
c) As per condition no.7 of “terms of contract”, the
insured is expected to give certificate of continued good health
in prescribed proforma. It was the duty of the 1st op to intimate
the insured about her obligation to give continued good health
certificate in prescribed proforma, while accepting the
premium along with penalty. It is not the case of any of the
opponents that the complainant was informed about her
obligation to furnish certificate of continued good health and
that proforma was made available to her.
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
9
d) More over the cause of death of the insured was not
due illness but it was due to accident.
11. Besides the above, sub clause(2) of Rule 40 of Post
office Life Insurance Fund which deals with settlement of
claim reads as under;
“2) Should the policy become a claim either
due to death of the life assured or completion of
the endowment period within the said period of
twelve months from the date first unpaid
premium had become due, the claim for the
payment of the policy shall be accepted subject to
deduction of all arrears of premiums/premia
together with interest thereon from the date the
first unpaid premium in respect of such policy
had become due to the date of its becoming a
claim at the rates prescribed by the Secretary
(Posts)/Director General of Posts and subject
further deduction of accumulated loan and
interest thereon, if any.”
A plain reading of the above reveals that the Postal
Authorities cannot refuse to settle the claim made on the
ground of death of insured within 12 months. If the arguments
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
10
of the opponents is to be accepted it would make Rule 40 Sub
Clause(2) redundent. Under circumstances it is held that the
policy in question was in force on the date of death of
H.K.Sujatha. Refusal on the part of opponents to settle the
claim made by the complainant amount to deficiency in
service.
12. In the complaint complainant has sought direction to
the opponents to pay the sum assured together with interest at
18%. Because the opponents have repudiated the claim
without valid reasons they are liable to pay interest at 9% from
the date of repudiation till the date of payment. Complainant
has prayed compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony,
expenses incurred to communicate with the opponents. No
evidence worth the name is adduced by the complainant to
show mental agony suffered by her and the expenses incurred
to communicate with the respondent. Affidavit (PW.1) of
complainant is silent as to the mental agony suffered by her
and the expenses incurred to communicate with the opponents.
However, the complainant is entitled for some compensation
because of deficiency in service by the opponents. It may be
noted that the complainant has incurred some expenditure to
contact the opponents either personally or through phone or
through letters. Taking into consideration the facts and
CC.127/10 Date of Filing:13.12.10
Date of Disposal: 18.3.11
11
circumstances of the case we feel that it would be reasonable to
award compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant is also entitled
for the costs of this proceeding. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are
answered and in the result following order is passed.
ORDER
Complaint is allowed in the following terms.
1. Opponents are hereby directed to pay jointly and
severally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Sum Assured) together with
interest at 9% from 29.10.08 till the date of payment. Two
months time is granted to the opponents to make payment.
2. Opponents shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the
complainant within two months from today.
3. Opponents are further directed to pay sum of
Rs.1,500/- to the complainant towards cost of this proceeding.
(Dictated to the stenographer, after computerised by her, corrected by us and then
pronounced in open court on this 18th day of March – 2011)
Sd/-
( T. NANJAPPA)
President.
Sd/-
(MANJULA BASAVALINGAPPA)
Member.
RK*