State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kavuri Aparna W/O.Late Seshagiri Rao ... vs Kavuri Sayi Babu Guntur And Others on 14 August, 2012
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.362/2011
against C.C.No.249/2010 District Forum, GUNTUR
Between
1. Kavuri Aparna,
W/o.late Seshagiri Rao,
Hindu, aged 30 years.
2. Kavuri Jayanth
S/o.late Seshagiri Rao.
3. Kavuri Shanmukh
S/o.late Seshagiri Rao.
..Appellants/
Complainants
(Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors, aged
About 3 and 1 year respectively, rep.
By their mother and natural guardian,
Kavuri Aparna, who is appellant 1 herein)
And
1. Kavuri Sayi Babu
S/o.Veeraiah
Hindu, aged 63 years.
2. Kavuri Devi Kumari
W/o.Sayi Babu
Hindu, aged 59 years.
(Both respondents 1 and 2 are
Husband
And wife are residing at Flat
No.503,
Rajani Grand Apartment, 2nd
Line
Rajendranagar, Guntur)
3. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, No.699,
Manibhushan complex,
Lakshmipuram Main Road,
Near Bata Showroom,
Guntur-522 007.
4. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional
office,
Jeevan Prakash, Kennady Road,
Post Box No.24,
Machilipatnam-521 001,
Krishna District. Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.D.Bala
Raju Associates
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.K.Raja
Reddy-R1 and R2
M/s.K.R.L.Sharma R3 and R4.
QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI
JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI
S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE FOURTEEN DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.249/2010 on the file of District Forum, Guntur, the complainants preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1 is the wife and complainants 2 and 3 are children of late Seshagiri rao and first and second opposite parties are parents of the said K.Seshagiri Rao and in-laws of first complainant. The complainants husband worked as Senior Project Manager and earned Rs.1,20,000/- per month and died in a road accident at Bangalore city due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC Bus driver. The complainant submitted that her husband obtained two policies viz Jeevan Anand and Jeevana Nidhi from opposite parties 3 and 4 and put the names of his mother and father as nominees. The complainant submitted that under Jeevan Anand policy, the maturity amount is Rs.11,30,000 for insured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and under Jeevana Nidhi Policy, the maturity amount is Rs.4,50,000/ for insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant submitted that the L.Rs. of her husband i.e. the complainants herein are also entitled to the maturity amount even though the names of his father and mother are only mentioned as nominees. The complainant submitted that after the death of her husband, opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e. her in-laws are not co-operating with her and she has no financial assistance. The complainant submitted that she came for delivery in May2010 and her husband died on 04-6-2010 and after his death, opposite parties 1 and 2 broke open the rented house of the first complainant at Bangalore and took all gold and silver articles, cash, credit and debit cards, house hold articles, LIC bonds, fixed deposit certificates of different banks, educational certificates and pass port without the knowledge of complainant and withdrew nearly Rs.3,50,000/- by using ATM cards which is an offence and therefore she gave a police complaint against opposite parties 1 and 2 and they were arrested and released on bail and because of these strained relations, opposite parties 1 and 2 are not willing to give the shares to the complainants in the policies. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 01-7-2010 to opposite parties 3 and 4 requesting them to release their amounts besides opposite parties 1 and 2 and to distribute the policy amount but opposite parties 3 and 4 received the said notice and got issued a reply dated 12-7-2010 stating that they will settle the claims in favour of nominees. The complainants submitted that inspite of repeated requests, opposite parties 3 and 4 failed to pay their share of amounts which is clear deficiency in service. Hence the complaint for a direction to opposite parties 3 and 4 to pay an amount of Rs.3,16,000/- each to complainants 1 to 3 together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version resisting the complaint and admitted the death of late Kavuri Seshagiri Rao in a road accident on 04-6-2010 and also admitted that he took two policies i.e. Jeevan Anand for Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.Jeevan Nidhi for Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite parties 3 and 4 and nominated them.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that they gave birth to two children i.e. the deceased and K.Jaya lakshmi and they constitute a joint Hindu family and that they utilized their personal earnings to provide higher education to his son i.e.deceased to study MCA and get a job in a prestigious company. Thereafter their son was married to the first complainant who gave birth to complainants 2 and 3 and he took the policies mentioned in the complaint out of joint family income and as such they are joint family property and submitted that the movable and immovable properties including the policies are to be divided amount coparceners i.e. opposite parties 1 and 2, their daughter and complainants. The calculation made by the complainant is not correct and the complainants are only entitled to 1/4th share and rest of the joint family members i.e. opposite parties 1 and 2 and their daughter are entitled to 3/4th share. Opposite party No.1 submitted that after knowing the death of his son, he went to Bangalore to bring the dead body and at that time, complainant No.1 is 7th month pregnant and therefore he conducted the death ceremony, vacated the rented house and brought the household articles but the first complainants father took away all the joint family properties, spoiled the mind of his daughter and instigated a police report against them. Opposite parties 1 and 2 further submitted that the deceased took group insurance policy from Met Life Insurance company and New India Assurance company Ltd., for sum assured of Rs.25,00,000/- and another policy from Birla Sun Life Insurance company for Rs.5,00,000/- and nominated complainant No.1 as the nominee and she without mentioning the two policies in her complaint suppressed the said facts and approached the two companies behind their back. Therefore, they got issued a notice on 19-10-2010 to the above two insurance companies not to settle the claims and as per reply dated 07-12-2010 of Met life India Insurance company Ltd., but the 1st complainant got settled the claim in her favour alone and this is clear fraud on the part of complainants. Opposite parties 1 and 2 further submitted that complainant No.1 obtained Legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar, Guntur without mentioning their names to grab the flat at Rajendranagar and also trying to vacate them from the said flat and he submitted that they will suffer, if they have no shelter and submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainants are not consumers and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4 and submitted that all the Joint family properties including LIC claims mentioned in the complaint and other policies have to be divided among all coparceners by civil court as per Hindu Succession Act and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4th opposite party filed his version which was adopted by 3rd opposite party resisting the complaint and admitted the issuance of two policies in the name of Kavuri Seshagiri Rao when he was alive and that he nominated his mother and father and that he died in a road accident on 04-6-2010 while the policies were in force and submitted that since opposite parties 1 and 2 are shown as nominees, they have to settle to opposite parties 1 and 2 and this fact was informed to complainant No.1 through their legal notice dated 12-7-2010. Opposite parties 3 and 4 submitted that if the complainants want to claim any share over the death benefits, they have to approach civil court and submitted that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B5 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the husband of the first complainant and father of second and third complainants i.e. Kavuri Seshagiri Rao took two policies namely Jeevan Anand and Jeevan Nidhi from opposite parties 3 and 4 for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively evidenced under Exs.A1 and A2, the nominees being opposite parties 1 and 2 who are the father and mother of the policy holder. While so on 04-6-2010 the policy holder died in an accident as evidenced under Ex.A5, death certificate. It is the complainants case that they are also entitled to the sum assured as they are the class-I legal heirs of the deceased. It is the case of parents i.e. opposite parties 1 and 2 that the premiums were paid from Joint Family income and therefore the policies are joint family property as per the Hindu Succession Act and the complainants are entitled to only 1/4th share and rest of the joint family members are entitled to 3/4 th share of the two policies. It is also their case that the first complainant suppressed policies of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- (Exs. B3 & B4) taken by the deceased in which the first complainant was the nominee.
It is the case of opposite parties 3 and 4, insurance company, that opposite parties 1 and 2, parents of the policy holder are listed as nominees in the said policies, and therefore in their reply notice dated 12-7-2010, evidenced under Ex.A4, opposite parties 3 and 4 contended that the first complainant and the daughter of opposite parties 1 and 2 should approach the Civil Court if they are claiming benefits in the said polices.
The District Forum observed that as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938, the nominees who survive are entitled to receive the money due under the policy only as a trustee for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased and in any dispute between the nominee and legal heirs, only a civil court can adjudicate the matter.
The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants relied on a judgement of the Apex court reported in 1996 (3) CPJ 19 (SC) between Subangi Shivaja Rao Ghatge v. LIC of India in which the Supreme court held as follows:
Though the brother of the deceased had laid the claim, he is not a Class I heir under Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 though mother is a Class I heir. Therefore, mother may claim a share in proportion prescribed under the personal law. The deceased left behind him two children and his widow. Therefore, they are entitled on 3/4th share while the mother may claim 1/4th share of the amount The facts in the instant case are also similar to the extent where the deceased has nominated his parents and the deceased left behind him two children and his widow. Relying on this judgement, we are of the considered view that the widow i.e. the first complainant herein is entitled to 1/4th share and her two children are also entitled to 1/4th share each which shall be kept in a fixed deposit till they attain majority and the other 1/4th share shall be paid to the second opposite party, who is the mother of the deceased, who is also Class I legal heir. Though the father of the deceased has also laid the claim, he is not a class I heir under Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is allowed in part directing opposite parties 3 and 4 jointly and severally to pay 1/4th share each to complainants 1, 2 and 3 and the share of minors is directed to be kept in a fixed deposit till they attain majority under the guidance of the first complainant and the mother of the deceased arrayed as opposite party No.2 is also entitled to balance 1/4th share as she is also class I legal heir. The 2nd opposite party i.e. the father being a class II legal heir is not entitled to any share in these policies. The amounts are to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.14-8-2012.