United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SHAIK SAIDA

THIS is an appeal filed by the appellants who are the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in District Forum under Section 15 of the C.P. Act to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Nalgonda in C.D. No. 57/2004 dated 18.2.2005.

THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the complainants before the District Forum filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,50,000 towards insured amount Rs. 25,000 towards the mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as costs of the complaint. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant''s elder son Shaik Mustafa the deceased/insured has purchased 10 lts. of Servo Oil worth Rs. 800 each on three occasions on 9.10.2003, 20.10.2003 and 28.11.2003 from M/s. J.S.R. Automobile shop, Kodada. As per the mutual understanding the said oil company offered a scheme of Servo Suraksha Personal Accident Insurance and if any customer purchased 10 lts. of servo super products or packs on cash memo or bill the said purchaser would get accident benefit covering from the United India Insurance Company. The insurance coverage would be up to Rs. 50,000 and it will be in force for one year. The complainant submits that M/s. J.S.R. Automobiles had issued three insurance coverages worth Rs. 50,000 each payable by the first opposite party. The said three policies were in force on the date of the death of the deceased. The complainant has informed the death of their son in the accident to the opposite party No. 1 on 23.12.2003. The opposite parties have neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the complainant approached District Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards the assured amount, Rs. 25,000 towards the mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards the legal expenses.

THE opposite party No. 1 filed counter. Opposite party No. 2 filed a memo adopting the counter of opposite party No. 1. THE opposite party submits that the complaint suffers for non-joinder of necessary parties as the dealer of M/s. J.S.R. Automobiles, Kodada, an important and necessary party was not impleaded. THE opposite party has denied the deceased having purchased any servo oil from M/s. J.S.R. Automobiles on three occasions with different dates. THE deceased Shaik Mustafa was never an auto mechanic by profession and he was only a worker during his life-time in the shop of M/s. J.S.R. Automobiles, Kodada. THE signatures of late Shaik Mustafa on three policy certificates are forged. THE opposite parties were not aware about the police report said to have been given and registered by Munugode P.S. on 3.12.2003. THE purchase bills were only for quantity of five litres. THE complainant has not fulfilled the policy conditions. THE complainant did not supply the original documents but only xerox copies of alleged insurance policies, FIR, P.M.E. report, inquest report and statements of mediators. THE opposite parties have no occasion to verify the original documents to settle or repudiate the claim for want of original documents by complainant. THE matter is pending with the opposite parties and hence there is no cause of action to approach the District Forum. THE complaint may be dismissed. The opposite party No. 3 filed counter stating that the deceased. Mustafa was never worked as auto mechanic under this opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed.

IN respect of the complainants'' claim the complainants have filed evidence affidavit. Besides evidence affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of Mr. Kottam Srinu Exs. A1 to A9 documents are filed. The plea taken in the complaint and evidence affidavit of the complainant is one and the same. Opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and documents Exs. B1 to B5. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward allowed the complaint directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 1,50,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of the insured i.e., 3.12.2003 till payment and costs of Rs. 500 payable within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The complaint is dismissed against opposite party No. 3. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed this appeal with the following grounds : The order of the District Forum is contrary to law weight of evidence and probabilities of case. The District Forum has not considered the legal consequences flowing from the fact that the original certificates of insurance were not filed, especially when the appellants in their counter specifically alleged that the certificates of insurance said to be issued to the deceased were concocted and the signatures in the said certificates were forged. The District Forum ought to have rejected the admission of xerox copies of the said insurance certificates. The complainants have not filed any document to show that Shaik Mustafa died in an accident. The District Forum should have observed that the cash credit bills marked as Ex. A1 were fabricated documents brought into existence with connivance of opposite party No. 3. The order passed by the District Forum may be set aside. The appellants contended that the complainants have not produced the original documents, without producing the original documents only xerox copies of the documents filed, the District Forum has given finding on the basis of the xerox copies of the insurance policy hence the order of the District Forum is not sustainable. Respondents/complainants resisted the plea that the entire policy records and all other records are in the custody of the Insurance Company, even the not-settling the claim amounts to deficiency in service and the order of the District Forum may be confirmed. The respondents/complainants have clarified that the original documents are misplaced and this fact was also mentioned in the complaint and evidence affidavit. As the original documents are misplaced the complainant was unable to produce the documents. The Insurance Company is in custody of the documents. On the basis of the said documents the Insurance Company should have either repudiated the policy or to have paid the policy amount. Not settling the claim of the complainants amounts to deficiency in service. The appellants have contended that on account of non production of original documents they are unable to settle the claim. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. The complainants have informed opposite party No. 1 about the death of the deceased under Ex. A7. The parents of the deceased submitted claim application on 7.9.2004 under Ex. B1. Even though the said letters are received the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 did not give any response and no action was taken on the notice issued by the complainant. The appellants submitted that there is no document filed by the complainants that the deceased Shaik Mustafa was working independently as an auto mechanic and required the servo products for repairing the auto. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. The District Forum has properly appreciated the evidence on record on this aspect. The appellants contended that the Ex. A1 is the cash credit bills issued by the opposite party No. 3 are fabricated documents for the purpose of this claim. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. When the documents are fabricated for the purpose of this complaint, the appellants ought to have taken steps to send the said documents for Hand Writing Expert to prove that documents are fabricated. When the plea of false and fabrication of documents was taken the burden lies on the appellant to prove the same. The appellants further submit that the complainants have not filed original insurance policy, FIR and post-mortem report, inquest report and statements of mediators and as such there is no occasion to verify the original documents to settle or repudiate the claim. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. After filing the complaint this plea is taken. Even a legal notice was issued by the complainants. Even for that legal notice there was no reply by the Insurance Company. Hence the appellants have taken a false plea. The appellants further contended that third opposite party did not intimate the Insurance Company about the death of Shaik Mustafa. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. There is no necessity to third opposite party to intimate the Insurance Company. On the other hand the complainant''s father has already intimated to the Insurance Company and also letter correspondence filed by the complainants goes to show that on several occasions representations were made but the opposite parties have failed to settle the claim. The appellants contended that the complainants have not filed any original documents as such they have not taken steps to prove the signatures on Exs. A1, A3 and A5 being forged documents. This aspect is concerned, we have gone through the documents filed by the respective parties. The appellants have not taken any steps in this aspect to prove that the documents are forged documents. The appellants contended that Ex. A1 cash credit bills are forged with the connivance of opposite party No. 3. This submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. The District Forum has properly appreciated the evidence on record and given finding. As per the policy conditions of the Servo Suraksha Personal Accident Insurance Policy of the deceased the complainants are entitled to insurance claim amount. The order passed by the District Forum in respect of awarding insurance claim amount is confirmed. The appellant contended that the interest awarded at 9% p.a. from the date of the death of insured till the payment is not sustainable. The submission made by the appellant is concerned the interest awarded from the date of death of the deceased is modified by awarding interest at 9% from the date of filing the complaint before the District Forum till payment. With these observations the complaint is partly allowed directing the appellants to pay awarded claim amount of Rs. 1,50,000 with interest at 9% from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. Order of the District Forum with regard to costs is confirmed. Time for compliance 6 weeks. Appeal partly allowed.