State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.P.Somasundara Rao, ... vs 1. The Manager,Oriental Insurance ... on 7 October, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.940/2012 against C.C.No.413/2008, Dist.Forum-II,Hyderabad. Between: Mr.P.Somasundara Rao, S/o.P.Kondaiah, Occ:Business, Aged about 41 years, C/o.Sri Dhana Lakshmi Enterprises, Near Old Bus Stand, Trunk Road, Kavali-524 201. Appellant/ Complainant And 1. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-V, Sri Suryamukhi Commercial Complex, D.No.7-4-194/11 & 2A, 2nd Floor, beside BBR Hospital, Balanagar, Hyderabad -500 001. 2. The Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Oriental House, Somajiguda, Opp.ITC Grand Kakatiya Hotel, Aditya Hospital Compound, Hyderabad. Respondents Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.Venkateswarlu Counsel for the respondents : Mr.S.Pramod Kumar QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN .
Oral Order:
(Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** This appeal is directed against the order dt.21.12.2011 of the District Forum-II , Hyderabad in C.C.No.413/2008 whereunder the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for assured amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the accidental death of the policy holder, compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000/-, is dismissed.
The brief case of the complainant as per the complaint is that his father P.Kondaiah left their house on 14.9.2005 and boarded Pinakini Express at Kavali at 9 a.m. to go over to Nellore for purchasing furniture material etc. The father of the complainant accidentally fell down from the train at Bitragunta railway station and died on the spot. When the complainants father not yet returned home by evening, the complainant and their relatives and well wishers made efforts to know the whereabouts of his father. On enquiry, they came to know that one person has fallen from the train at Bitragunta railway station and died on the spot.
On receipt of this information, the complainant enquired with the police at Bitragunta railway police station, where a crime was registered as case in Crime No.79/2008 by Bitragunta Govt. railway police. The police concerned have shown the clothes and photographs of the deceased on 16.10.2005. The complainant identified the clothes and photographs of the deceased as that of his father by name P.Kondaiah on 16.10.2005.
The complainant made claim application to the opposite parties within the stipulated time, along with the documents duly attested by the gazetted officer. The opposite parties after receiving the claim forms repudiated the claim on the grounds that there was discrepancy in regard to the age, clothes worn and place of death of dead person as regards to which Britragunta railway Police registered the case and the father of the appellant/complainant. Questioning the reasonableness of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant has filed the complaint.
The respondents resisted the complaint contending that the claim was repudiated basing on the reasons noted in the repudiation letter that there is no proof or evidence to show that the dead body found on the railway track at Bitragunta railway station is that of the father of the complainant, that the complaint is filed with a malafide intention, only to get compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the complaint of the complainant with costs.
During the course of enquiry, in order to proove his case, the complainant had filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. As against the evidence adduced by the complainant, authorized signatory of the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consderation of the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the complainant failed to prove that the dead body of the deceased that was found at the railway track, Bitragunta railway station is that of the dead body of P.Kondaiah, the father of the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred the above appeal, questioning the validity and legality of the order.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record, including the written arguments, filed by the counsel for the respondents.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent insurance company issued insurance policy bearing no.431600/0/888/42/9051/2005 for an assured sum of Rs.5 lakhs for the period of one year commencing from 01.02.2005 to 31.01.2006, in favour of the appellants father Kondaiah. It is also not in dispute that one person fell down from train and died on the spot, near Bitragunta Railway Station.
The respondent insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant for the reasons given below:
1). According to your own statement vide your letter dt.09/11/2005, the deceased Kondaiah left by Pinakini Express on 16/09/2005 at 9.00 a.m. Intriguingly the panchanama of the deceased, body of which was found on the railway track at about prior to 1.00 A.M. on 16.09.2005, was conducted at about 7.30 hours on 16.09.2005. Hence it is absurd to co-relate the body of the deceased to that of your father and you are only attempting to impersonate the body of the deceased.
It is highly improbable that you have not made any attempt or efforts to find out the whereabouts of your father for about a month nor have you lodged any FIR with the police on the missing person for such a long time. Infact the information on the unidentified body was widely circulated to all the police stations in the line and was also publicised in vernacular news papers. It is just unbelievable that none of these information failed to attract your attention.
3). We have also caused thorough investigation in to the factum of the accident whose comprehensive report is received by us. The investigator has conclusively opined that the body found on the railway track is not the one of the Kondaiah and that your theory of rail accident had lots of inconsistencies and contradictions.
The age of Mr.Kondaiah according to the certificate of insurance was 66 years while the age of the deceased person as per the FIR was 40 years and as per Panchanama it was 55 years and as per the postmortem report it was 50 years . Hence, the age of the deceased person cannot be considered to be of more than 55 years. We have also obtained an extract of Electrical List (Assembly segment 125, Part 122, serial No.700) and according to this the age of Panuganti Kondaiah, Son of Peda Somaiah, R/o.3-14-18 was 78 years. Hence in no case can we relate the body of the deceased found on the tracks with that of Sri Kondaiah.
5). Again a look at the Photo copies of the Electroal ID Cards ( bearing same ID No.BZT1874445) of Sri Kondaiah surprisingly both the photo copies indicate different age as on the same given date i.e. 01/01/2003 . This clearly proves that the age as can be seen from the photo copy of the ID Cards is different from the original ID Card and the photo copies were manipulated to reflect the age that suits the purpose.
6) As per your own statement Mr.Kondaiah was wearing white shirt, white Dhothi and rubber chappals. When this fact was corroborated with the dress of the deceased on the railway track it was totally different who was wearing Khaki nikker and your statement that you have indentified these clothes to be that of Mr.Kondaiah is totally falsified.
In this case, the main question for determination is whether the dead body found at railway track, near Bitragunta Railway station is that of P.Kondaiah, the father of the appellant/complainant. In view of the contentions of both the parties, there are several disputed questions of facts with regard to the identity of the dead body, as that of the father of the appellant, the clothes worn by him and the time he left his house on 14.09.2005 and also the age of the appellants father. In our view, the matter involves examination of witnesses, appreciation of voluminous documentary evidence and also finding whether the documents are fabricated for the purpose of the claim. As such, all these questions cannot be decided in a summary way contemplated under the provisions of the C.P.Act. We are fortified in our view by the following decisions:
In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
vs. Muni Mahesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ Page
1. The Honble Supreme Court held that where the matter involves adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions, the Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the matter and the complainant was entitled to seek the relief in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
The Honble National Commission in Transport Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust vs. Orissa Small Industries and another III (2007) CPJ 316(NC) and in Om Prakash vs. Allahabad Bank reported in III (2006) CPJ page 418 held that the matter involving adjudication of disputed questions of facts has to be tried by competent Court.
Thus, we are inclined to give opportunity to the complainant to approach competent Court for adjudication of matter.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, giving opportunity to the appellant/complainant to approach the Civil Court or any other Forum, for the reliefs sought for in the complaint. In the event, the respondents approaches the Civil Court or another Forum, the period spent between the trial of the complaint before the District Forum and the disposal of the matter by this Commission till today, will be excluded under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act,1963, in the light of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Trai Foods Ltd. vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. and others reported in III(2012)CPJ page 17.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt. 07.10.2013