State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Aditya Rice Industries, Itikyala Post, ... vs 1. United India Insurance Company ... on 7 December, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/370/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/12/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/12/2013 of District Nalgonda) 1. Aditya Rice Industries, Itikyala Post, Shettipalem, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District Rep. by its Managing Partner, Pabba Srikanth Son of Pabba Yadagiri Aged 25 Years, R.o. Miryalaguda Post and Mandal ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. United India Insurance Company Limited Regd and Head Office 24, Whites Roads, Chennai Rep. by its Authorized Signatory 2. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager, 1 Floor, Paidimarri Complex, Reddy Colony, Miryaguda, Nalgonda District ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 07 Dec 2017 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 370 OF 2014 AGAINST CC No. 12/2013, DISTRICT FORUM, NALGONDA Between : Aditya Rice Industries, Itikyala, Post : Shettipalem, Vemulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, Represented by its Managing Partner, Pabba Srikanth, S/o Pabba Yadagiri, Aged : 25 years, R/o Miryalaguda Post and Mandal, .....Appellant/complainant And United India Insurance Company Limited, Regd and Head office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai, represented by its authorized signatory United India Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Branch Manager, 1 Floor, Paidimarri complex, Reddy colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District .. Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Vakkanti Narasimha Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri GSG Radhakrishna for R1&R2 Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Thursday, the Seventh Day of December Two Thousand Seventeen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 made in CC 12 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Nalgonda district.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he took Insurance policy Ex.A-2 for a period of six months from 11.07.2011 to cover the risk of 10 Mason, 15 laborers and 12 electricians from the second opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.21,728/-On 02.11.2011 at 1.00 am, one Pandiri Sekhar @ Chandrasekhar while doing painting work, had fallen down from the railing when he was making attempt to take the bucket from the first floor to second floor and sustained severe injuries at Miryalaguda and on his way to Kamineni Hospital, he died near Kukkadam village. One P. Srinvas, Brother of the deceased, lodged complaint and PS Vemulapally registered Crime No. 104 of 2011 and closed the matter under " accidental death". As per the directions of the Assistant Commissioner, Labour, Suryapet, to pay a sum of Rs.3,92,200/-as per Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 vide Ex.A-11 to the legal heirs of the deceased, he deposited the same. Since the policy was in force, the claim made by him was repudiated in the light of the conditions no. 4 and 5 of the policy which is illegal. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,92,000/- towards the death claim of the deceased and costs.
4) The second opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, which was adopted by the first opposite party and while admitting the issuance of Ex. A2 policy in question, contending that in the FIR and other documents the name of the deceased is referred as Pandiri Sekhar as a painter engaged in the company of the complainant , but, no such person is the employee of the complainant and according to the muster role, one Pandiri Chandrasekhar was working as a coolie at the relevant time and in the subsequent record before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, it is shown as Pandiri Sekhar @ Chandrasekhar. The person who died is the different than who was employed in the firm on the relevant date. When a person dies, his legal representative should file the complaint but not his employer. According to condition no. 4 and 5 of the policy, the complainant was obliged to inform about the proceedings and they are not liable to pay the amount as demanded. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-19 and Ex.B1 to B7 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties . Heard both sides.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments by the respondents/OP. Heard both sides.
9) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No.1 :
The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the one Pandiri sekhar @ Chandrasekhar died while working with the appellant/complainant and his brother P.Srinivas lodged complaint with the Police and on the direction of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, he deposited an amount of Rs.3,92,200/- vide DD under Ex.A-12 and acknowledgement Ex.A-14. The main contention of the appellant/complainant is that the repudiation of the claim by the respondents/opposite parties as per condition nos. 4 and 5 of the policy is illegal. Condition No. 4 stipulates that " in the event of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy, the insure shall as soon as possible, give notice thereof to the company with full particulars. Every letter, claim, writ summons and process shall be notified or forwarded to the company immediately on receipt. Notice shall also be given to the company immediately by the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal injury in connection with any such occurrence as aforesaid. As per condition No. 5, No admission, offer, promise or payment shall be made by or on behalf of the insured without the consent of the company which shall be entitled if it so desires to be taken over and conduct in his name, the defense or settlement of any claim in conduct of any proceedings and in the settlement of any claim or to prosecute in his name for its own benefit any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise and shall have full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings and in the settlement of any claim and the insured shall give such information and assistance as the company may require ". Admittedly the accidental death of the deceased had occurred on 02.11.2011. Perusal of Ex. A8 letter from the second opposite party Insurance Company to the appellant/complainant show they have written a letter on 03.11.2011 earlier to the appellant/complainant and further they are asking for some other documents It is evident from the said letter that insurance company was intimated about the death of the deceased. The appellant/complainant deposited an amount of Rs.3,92,200/- in compliance with the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Suryapet, Nalgonda. In the letter Ex.A8, the respondents/opposite parties asked the following documents :
duly filled claim form wage register for the last 6 months Attendance Register for the last 6 months FIR copy/Labour office intimation copy Doctors prescriptions, treatment particulars and also doctor certificate for rest and percentage of disability Labour Court award and payment receipt.
When the appellant/complainant submitted the above documents along with the payment receipt for Rs.3,92,200/- vide Ex.A14 in compliance of the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, vide Ex. A-11, it is the bounden duty of the respondents/opposite parties to refund the same to the appellant/complainant, who, complied with orders of the Labour Court since it is obligatory on his part as employer of the deceased. The respondents/ opposite parties repudiated the claim on 12.06.2012 vide Ex.A-17 on technical ground, even after receipt of the documents along with the award of the Labour Court, that it was not paid with the consent of the respondents/ opposite parties. Of course, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents/opposite parties to obey the orders of the Labour Court. Repudiation of the claim, while the policy was in force, is nothing but disobedience of the orders of the Labour Court since the appellant/complainant insured the deceased with the respondents/opposite parties Insurance company and hence the respondents/opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation as complied by the appellant/complainant. With regard to the discrepancy in the name of the deceased as Pandiri Sekhar @ Chandrasekhar, need not taken into account as pointed out by the respondents/opposite parties since there is no change in the name of his father and no other person was claiming the amount in the same name and the employer also recommended his name and the Labour court also ordered in the same name. Though, the dependants of the deceased has to approach the forum for insurance claim of the deceased, since the appellant/complainant had paid the said amount as per the orders of the Labour court, hence he approached the Fora to recover his amount since the appellant/complainant has insured the deceased.
11). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the appellant/complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.3,92,200/- paid by him in compliance of the orders of the Labour Court to the legal heirs of the deceased.
12). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed and consequently the complaint is allowed in part directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,92,200/- with interest @ 9% pa from 03.04.2012, i.e. from the date of repudiation, to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 07.12.2017. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER