National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Koilala Shankeramma & Ors. vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 29 January, 2010
OP 10/1998
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2008
[Against the order dated
30.07.2007 in Appeal No. 870/2007 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad]
National Insurance Company Ltd
P.O. No. 236, Jhaveri Mansion,
Bank Street, Koti,
Hyderabad-500 001
Through Regional Office-I,
Jeewan Bharti Tower,
Level-4, 124, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110 001.
Versus
1. Koilala
Shankeramma, W/o Late Lingaiah
2. Koilala
Vijaya, D/o Late Lingaiah
3. Koilala
Suresh, S/o Late Lingaiah
4. Koilala
Rajesh, S/o Late Lingaiah
5. Koilala
Mallamma, W/o Lachulu
All are residents of Thilaknagar
Godavarikhani, Karimnagar Distt.
6. Andhra
Bank, Represented by its Manager, Branch Office, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar
Distt.
Petitioner
Respondents
Appearance :
For the petitioner
Mr. Sushant
Sharma, Adv.,
Mr. Sharan Thakur,
Advocate
For the respondents
Mr. P. Vijaya
Kumar
Mr. R. Santhan
Krishnan
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Pronounced on : 29th January, 2010
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Deceased K. Lingaiah in his capacity as an account holder under Abhaya Gold Savings Scheme with the Andhra Bank was covered for group personal accident death benefit provided by the petitioner/Insurance Company. On his death due to drowning in a well allegedly while trying to train his son for swimming, the respondents/complainants no. 1 to 5, who comprised his widow, mother, a daughter and two sons, filed a claim, as according to them the death was accidental.
Since despite repeated requests there was no favourable response, a legal notice was issued, which, however, was replied to by the petitioner/Insurance Company, stating that the death of the deceased was not accidental but he had himself jumped into the well and died.
This forced the respondents/complainants to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (District Forum for short), who after consideration of the pleadings and evidence produced before it held the petitioner/Insurance Company negligent and deficient in rendering service and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh with 9% interest from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 03.02.2007.
When the matter was taken up in appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission for short), the order passed by the District Forum was confirmed and the petitioner/Insurance Companys appeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the two fora below holding the petitioner/Insurance Company liable that this revision petition has been filed.
Both sides are represented by their respective counsel.
There is a delay of 185 days in filing this revision petition by the petitioner/Insurance Company. In order to cross this hurdle, learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company has submitted that the delay in filing the revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional and has been caused purely due to circumstances and unavoidable procedure involved in obtaining sanction and approval of various authorities and appointing counsel to pursue the matter. He has submitted that the Branch of the petitioner/Insurance Company on receiving certified copy of the impugned order, found that the relevant documents such as investigators report and the appeal memo before the State Commission were missing. These documents being crucial to the processing of the matter, their Divisional Office at Hyderabad was contacted to retrieve these documents. This process took considerable amount of time.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to the petitioner/Insurance Companys Head Office at Delhi for obtaining necessary approval. It was only thereafter that the papers could be referred to the counsel, who was out of station in connection with the marriage of his close relative.
Subsequently, on the advice of the counsel, some documents that were not very legible had to be typed and sent to the counsel and all this process also took quite some time. Referring to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others [(1996) 3 SCC 132], learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner/Insurance Company being an instrumentality of the State should be given the benefit of the delay as it is common knowledge that papers are dealt with by the staff of the petitioner/Insurance Company with extreme care and caution so as to avoid any accountability falling on them and the process takes longer than expected.
Learned counsel has further contended that in the case in hand, both the fora below have drawn an idiosyncratic inference giving credence to totally improbable theory of occurrence. There is substantive merit in the revision petition and, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Kathpalia Vs. Lakhmir Singh [(1984) 4 SCC 66] it would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice, if this common phenomenon of delay which is not intentional is not taken into account and the delay not condoned. Learned counsel under the circumstances prayed for the condonation of the delay and consideration of the revision petition on merit.
Even though the counsel appearing for the respondents/complainants no. 1 to 5 has not raised any serious objection with regard to the delay in filing the revision petition, we have duly considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company. The delay of 185 days definitely amounts to rather long delay but considering that papers had to be moved from the Branch Office of the petitioner/Insurance Company to their Divisional Office at Hyderabad and from there to Delhi and also had to be moved to and fro from their counsel, we are inclined to condone the delay, specially keeping in view the fact that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani (supra) on the question of delay has held as under :
When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible.
(Emphasis supplied) On the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, while assailing the order of the fora below and admitting that the deceased/Life Assured was covered under the group personal accident death benefit, has contended that his death on 30th of June, 2003 was not due to any accident or that the death was accidental.
It was a pure and simple case of suicide, which has been deliberately converted to depict as if the death was due to an accident. It was a fabrication of the story which is evident from the fact that deceased/Life Assured K. Lingaiah is alleged to have taken his son on 30th of June, 2003 at about 1500 hours to an agricultural well to train him for swimming.
Referring to the report of the investigator, learned counsel has submitted that the well was 40 feet deep and there was no staircase or facility to enter inside the well. The only way one could enter into the well is by jumping into it. No one in his senses could ever conceive of an idea to take a child to impart him the intricacies of swimming in a well, that too at an isolated place. Both the fora below have believed this improbability and have held that the Life Assured in the process of giving lessons for learning swimming to his son jumped into the well and died accidentally. They have relied on the report of the police authorities submitted before the Executive Magistrate, requesting him to close the case as accidental death by drowning. The police authorities never visited the site for fear from the naxalites and had submitted a false report, just to help the complainants and hush up the matter.
Countering the version of learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, the learned counsel for the complainants stated that the theory of suicide was most unlikely because the Life Assured was already in employment of a colliery and was in receipt of regular salary and there was no reason for him to commit suicide. Moreover, if he were to commit suicide he would better do it quietly and never take his son along. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, however, submits that these do not constitute sufficient grounds to draw an inference that it was not a case of suicide as the real cause behind the suicide in the absence of any suicide note will never be known. There may have been some other reason, which has not surfaced. To contend that just because the police report states it to be an accidental death, which has been accepted by the Executive Magistrate in routine, it cannot be taken as sacrosanct nor can it prevent the petitioner/Insurance Company to get the matter investigated through their own agency.
The investigators report is eloquent and stoutly denounced the theory of accidental death.
The fora below, therefore, have completely gone wrong in holding that it was a case of accidental death and their order need be set aside.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also have perused the records of the case. The moot point to be decided is whether the death of Life Assured K. Lingaiah was accidental or otherwise. The complainants contend that the Life Assured took his son for imparting lessons in swimming to an agricultural well at 1500 hours on 30th of June, 2003. The starting point itself reveals the design of the complainants as swimming can be taught either in a village pond or in nearby river/stream but certainly not in an agricultural well, that too 40 feet deep where one can enter only by jumping into it. Even a well-trained diver would think twice before venturing into such deep well but to say that he took his son and dived into the well could hardly be believed. Further, 1500 hours i.e. 3 in the afternoon is hardly any time for anybody to go for a bath or a swim. Thirdly, it can safely be presumed that the Life Assured was an accomplished swimmer since he was taking his son to impart training on swimming. If that be so, it is rather strange that he drowned but the son who was a novice insofar as swimming was concerned, survived. The police report states that it was the elder brother of the deceased/Life Assured who visited the spot and brought the body out.
This is also not believable since the well is good one and a half kilometers away from the village in the midst of agricultural land and there is no explanation as to how and when the rescuers reached the spot.
The above circumstances depict that the entire story has been woven around with flimsy threads and that is how it is not worthy of credence. Thus, it cannot be held to be a case of accidental death and both the fora below have been grossly misled by the police report, which, in a case of consumer dispute, need not necessarily be taken as clinching evidence ignoring the preponderance of probability. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is accepted, however, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/