State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.K. Kavitha vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on 13 June, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
C.C.208/2017
Between :
1.Smt. K. Kavitha, W/o. Late. K.Suresh Rao, Aged about: 49 yearfs, Occ: Employee.
2. K. Satwik. S/o. Late. K. Suresh Rao, Aged about: 22 years, Occ: Student.
3. K. Sahas, S/o. Latd. K. Suresh Rao, Aged about: 19 years, Occ: Student.
All are R/o. Flat NO. 201, Crystal Cave Apartments, Gupta Gardens, Ramanthapur.
... Complainants And The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 10-400, 401 & 402, Al-Karim Trade Centre, MG. Road, Ranigung, Secunderabad.
.... Opposite party Counsel for the Complainants : Sri P. Raja Sripathi Rao Counsel for the Opposite Party: Sri Kota Sameer Kumar.
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-J & HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER-MJ TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE Order : (Hon'ble V.V. SESHU BABU MEMBER-J)
1. The complainant is filed on 13.10.2017 U/s. 17 (1) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against opposite party to pay assured amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, and Rs.10,000/- towards children aid @ 24% per annum from 08.08.2014: to pay Rs.7,50,000/- towards mental agony suffered by complainant No. 1 to 3 @ Rs.2.5 lakhs each and to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that first complainant is the wife, complainant No. 2 & 3 are the major sons of Late. K. Suresh Rao (herein after will called absent deceased) 2 who was working as DSP in the Intelligent Security Wing, Telangana State Police Department from 2014 and a policy holder bearing No. 61040042130100000258 a group personal accident policy issued by the opposite party, valid from 02.12.2013 to 01.12.2014: that on 08.08.2014 at about 16:05 hours, the deceased sustained a bullet injury to his head in his chambers due to mishandling of the service revolver: that a complaint was lodged before the police Panjagutta, which registered a case in crime No. 888/2014 and after investigation in all respects a final report was filed before the Special Executive Magistrate at Hyderabad on 30.04.2015 by stating that "action dropped since the death occurred due to the mishandling of fire arm by the deceased": that the Director General of Police, Telangana, Hyderabad intimated the opposite party vide letter in RC. No. 164/V4/2015, dated 27.07.2015 to sanction the accident insurance amount and enclosed all the necessary documents: that the opposite party replied vide letter dated 01.04.2016 repudiating the claim on the ground that it was suicidal death thereby closed the claim basing on the report of its investigator: that the said report was not served on the complainants: that only to avoid payment of amount the claim is closed on invented grounds: hence, the complaint.
3. The brief averments of the written version of opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law: that the complainants are put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint, except those that are admitted:
that as per the FIR itself it is a suicidal death: that they have appointed Mr. Zuber an investigator regarding the claim, who submitted the reported dated 02.01.2016; basing on the media clippings with satisfactory reasons: that the deceased was having a decade of experience in Police Department and worked as security officer for Chief Minister's of Telangana and erstwhile Andhra Pradesh and there is no possibility for him to receive an injury with a fire arm which mishandling the same: that the police intentionally not conducted the investigation in proper lines and failed to collect gunshot residues (GSR) and intentionally concealed the ballistic expert report: that the photographs of the wounds would reveal that they were caused in a suicidal death: that due to health 3 problems the deceased committed suicide as he was worried about the health issues: that the entry wound at the temple region was sustained at point blank range and it shows, it was a suicide: that final report was prepared with fabricated statements by the entire department who were sympathetic towards the complainants with this, requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. To prove the case complainant No.1 filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Mr. R.B. Singh Regional Manager of the opposite party filed evidence affidavit as RW1. Mr. Zuber Ali Khan the investigator filed evidence affidavit as RW2. Mr. R. Mahadevan Regional Manager of the opposite party filed additional chief examination as RW3. Ex.B1 to B3 are marked for the opposite party. Heard the arguments on both sides. Written arguments filed for opposite party.
5. Now the points for determination are:-
(i) Whether the deceased died suicidal or accidental death?
(ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part opposite party?
(iii) Whether complainants are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?
(iv) Relief?
6. Point No. 1 to 3:- Admittedly, the deceased Late. K. Suresh Rao, was working in police department as DSP, Intelligence Security Wing, Telangana State, Hyderabad: that the relationship of the complainants with the deceased is also not in dispute: that the existence of accidents group insurance policy and its force by the date of death of the deceased is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that, as per the complainants the deceased met with the death due to the mishandling of the service revolver and as per the opposite party it is a suicidal death.
7. On 08.08.2014 at about 16:05 hours in his chambers in the office, the deceased died due to the bullet entered into the 4 right temple region and its exit was at left side below the left ear. No eye witness was present at the time of deceased receiving such injury. Ex.A2 is the FIR given by Sri T. Siva Reddy, Additional SP (Admn.) ISW.TS, Hyd., 08.08.2014 at 16:45 hours to police, Punjagutta and it was registered U/s. 174 of Cr.PC. IN the complaint it is mentioned that one Mr. Chandra Shekar, PC 288, informed to the complainant: Sri T. Siva Reddy, that the deceased has committed suicide with his service pistol in his office on the first floor of fair lawns buildings, Khairatabad, Hyderabad (O/o. The IGP (ISW)). The final report dated 30.04.2015 submitted before special executive magistrate, Hyderabad goes to shows that the further action was dropped since the death occurred due to mishandling of fire arm by the deceased. It is also mentioned that Mr. Chandra Shekar, the Constable 288 who gave information to the complainant stated in his statement; that at the said point of time he was outside and having heard the gunshot sound rushed into the chambers of the deceased and found him sitting in a chair in a pool of blood and thought that it was a suicide and so, informed the same to the complainant. It is further mentioned in the final report that, the investigating officer/Inspector of Police Panjagutta, gone through the statements of complainants/relatives FIR, Post-mortem examination report FSL report regarding the fire arm and its bullets, came to the conclusion that it was an accidental mishap, thereby met with the death.
8. Ex.B1 is the investigating report submitted by RW2 and it is mentioned therein that, he has gone through the incident location spot sketch, FSL report of gunshot residue, service record copy, medical leave and medical reimbursement details from the police department relating the deceased, and thereafter gave the report having caused enquiries at ISW Department, who have told that the insured committed suicide with his own revolver due to health related problems. Here, it is important to note that as per PW1 the deceased was not suffering from any health issues, no differences or disputes within the family, including no financial aspects for her husband to commit suicide. RW2 heavily relied upon the literature regarding the gunshot wounds as mentioned in page No. 4 to 13 of his report.
59. No effort was made by opposite party or RW2 to elicit whether any ballistic report was in fact submitted in the case. At first without confirming the same, it is mentioned that the ballistic report was concealed. If really a report was given by any ballistic expert, the opposite party would have examined such expert as a court witness. Likewise, the Doctor who issued the post-mortem examination report is also not examined as a court witness. No interrogatories are served on the above two witnesses. It is a lacuna in the case of opposite party.
10. When the opposite party came forward with definite version that, the deceased committed suicide due to health issues, it is for them to prove the same, by securing relevant medical record of the deceased. It is also to be observed that as per Ex.B1, RW2 has gone through the service record copy and the medical leave and medical reimbursement details of the deceased from the police department. If the service record copy is perused by anybody, one can on absence on how many occasions with the details of the days the deceased applied for medical leave or earned leave on medical grounds and on what grounds he applied for such leaves. It is difficult for anybody to suppress those details. In the absence of any medical evidence, it is difficult to believe the reasons for committing suicide by the deceased as health issues. If there is any harassment for the deceased in the hands of superior officers or from his sub-ordinates, such details also will be available in the service record copy, or if any effort his made all the charge memos can be available with the office, in which the deceased was working.
11. NO expert opinion was obtained by the opposite party to prove that, there was no possibility to sustain a bullet injury at the right temple region of any individual due to mishandling of fire arm. At times truth is stranger than fiction. Therefore, we are of the view that by presumptions and assumptions & by surmises and conjectures, no conclusion can be drawn; that the deceased met with the suicidal death, more so, when PW1 came forward with clear cut version that there are no incriminating 6 circumstances/reasons for the deceased to commit suicide. With this all the points are answered in favour of the complainants.
12. Point No.4:- As per the policy the opposite party shall pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the accidental death of a person in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Except, mentioning the complainants No. 2 & 3 as students no document is filed to show what they were studying by the date of death of the deceased. The complainant NO.2 aged 22 years and three was aged 19 years by the date of filing the complaint, which was done nearly three years after the death. In such circumstances the ages of complainant No. 2 & 3 will be 19 & 16 years by the date of death of their father. It shows there is every likelihood of them, to pursue the studies. Therefore, they can be awarded Rs.5,000/- each towards educational aid: so, also Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges of the dead body. Repudiating the claim without proper reasons amounts to deficiency in service.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.20,000/- and the opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant No.1 and Rs.4,00,000/- each to the complainants No.2 & 3, in total of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim till the date of payment; that further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the complainants No. 2 & 3, towards educational aid and to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant NO.1, towards transportation of the dead body and Rs.50,000/- each to the complainants No. 1 to 3 for the mental agony suffered by them.
Time for compliance is one month and in case of failure the amounts will carry interest @8% per annum from the date of expiry of one month till the date of payment.
SD/- SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
MEMBER(M-J) MEMBER (M-NJ)
Dt:13.06.2023.
BSR
7
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
Evidence affidavit of Evidence affidavit of
The complainant Opposite party
PW1: Smt. K. Kavitha RW1: Mr. R.B. Singh
RW2: Mr. Zubar
RW3: Mr. R. Mahadevan
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A1: is the Photostat copy of Letter, dated 27.07.2015.
Ex.A2: is the Photostat copy of First Information Report, dated 08.08.2014.
Ex.A3: is the Photostat copy of Case Diary Part - II, dated 08.08.2014.
Ex.A4: is the Photostat copy of 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of Witnesses Ex.A5: is the Photostat copy of Inquest Report, dated 08.08.2014. Ex.A6: is the Photostat copy of PME Report, dated 27.11.2014. Ex.A7: is the Photostat copy of FSL Report, dated 25.02.2015. Ex.A8: is the Photostat copy of Final Result, dated 08.08.2014. Ex.A9: is the Photostat copy of Death Certificate, dated 08.08.2014. Ex.A10: is the Photostat copy of Family Certificate. Ex.A11: is the Photostat copy of Letter, dated 01.04.2016.
For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B1: is the Photostat copy of Investigation Report, dated 02.01.2016.
Ex.B2: is the Original CD.
SD/- SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
MEMBER(M-J) MEMBER (M-NJ)
Dt:13.06.2023.
BSR