State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Muppalla Koushik Chowdary, Guntur ... vs Lic Of India, Guntur And One Another on 9 April, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 98/2012 against CC 118/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur. BETWEEN: Muppalla Koushik Chowdary, S/o Raghava Rao, Being minor rep. by his maternal grand father Minnakanti Biragi, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, R/o Vinukonda Post Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur district. Appellant/Complainant AND 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Vinukonda Post Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur district. 2. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Batchupet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. D. Bala Raju Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Hari Rao Lakkaraju Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Tuesday, the Nineth Day of April Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 13/12/2011 in CC 118/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Guntur . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants mother , by name, Minnakanti Lakshmi Rajyam, who is working as teacher and divorcee from Muppalla Koushik Chowdary, obtained two insurance policies bearing No.673493428 and 673497205 from the 1st opposite party during her life time. The petitions in MC 6/06 and HMGOP 156/06 for maintenance and cancellation of maintenance respectively were dismissed as infructous on account of the death of the said Lakshmi Rajyam. Subsequently Raghava Rao father of the complainant filed OP 180/07 on the file of I Addl. District Court, Guntur against the complainants maternal grand father to handover the minor Kaushik Chowdary and also IA 1459 of 2007 to restrain the opposite parties herein and the Government Educational Department from paying death benefits to the claimants or the nominees. Neither stay nor injunction was granted in IA 1459 of 2007. One Minnakanti Biragi the maternal grand father of the complainant filed OP.283/07 seeking to appoint him as guardian of the minor. Both the petitions were disposed off on 10-08-09 and the said Biragi was appointed as guardian of minor complainant. Even after furnishing copy of order in OP.283/07 the opposite party paid Rs.2,50,000/- only being the policy amount. No interest was paid on the said amount. When requested for the interest amount the 1st opposite party on 15-02-10 replied that payment of AB amount was withheld due to restraint order from the I ADC, Guntur in IA 1459 of 2007 in HMGOP 180 of 2007 and as per order of the Court in HMGOP 180 of 2007 and 283 of 2007 dated 10-08-09 payment was made, and no payment towards interest is made for the delayed payment. The said Biragi filed CC 201 of 2010 before this Forum for the said amount and it was dismissed on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and hence he filed the complaint to direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.74,584/- being the interest on Rs.2,50,000/- @12% p.a., from 03-08-07 to 28-01-10 (for delayed payment) and Rs.10,000/- towards damages besides costs.
3. OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
The opposite parties are nothing to do with the disputes between the complainant and M. Annapurnamma on one side and M. Raghava Rao on the other side. The 1st opposite party was a party to IA 1459/07 and as such could not proceed in making payment. In view of pendency of OPs 282/07 and 180/07 on the file of 1st Additional District Court the 1st opposite party could not make payment as it tantamount to a prohibitory order. The 1st opposite party paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 28-01-10 as the claimant submitted discharge form on that day only. The opposite parties paid the amount promptly. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute. The complaint is barred by principles of resjudicata and that there is no deficiency in service and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 were marked for the OPs.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum the complainant is dismissed without costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the Ops intentionally avoided to pay the amount covered by policy in question and therefore he is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% Pa on Rs.2,50,000/- from 3.8.2007 to 28.1.2010 and that the District forum did not direct the Ops to pay such an interest and therefore order of the District Forum is illegal and that the complainant is entitled for Rs.74,574/- together with subsequent interest from the date of complaint till realization and also costs throughout.
7. Heard the counsel for the respondent/ Ops and despite giving sufficient time the representative of the complainant did not advance any arguments.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
09. The case of the complainant is that during the life time of One Laxmi Rajyam, who is his other had obtained two insurance policies in question from first opposite party and that there were matrimonial disputes and differences between her and her husband Raghava rao and that while the things thus stood she died and that on account of her death the HMGOP 156/2006 and MC 6/2006 were dismissed as infructuous and that father of the complainant filed OP 180/2007 on the file of ! Addl. District Court , Guntur against the maternal Grand father of the complainant herein for custody of the complainant herein so also IA 1459/2007 restraining the Ops and the Governmental Education department from paying the death benefits to the claimants or the nominees but no stay was granted in .IAs and that another OP 283/2007 was filed by the said Maternal Grand father of the minor complainant for his custody and both the said Ops were disposed of appointing the said Bairagi as the Guardian of the minor complainant. Later on, the Ops paid Rs.2,50,000/- policy amount to the minor through the said guardian. Since interest was not paid the said Bairgi filed CC 201/2010 before the District Consumer Forum, Guntur and it was dismissed on the ground that he had no locus standi to file the complaint. The said dismissal cannot be considered as resjudicata for the purpose of this complaint it is much more so when the complainant is different and no merit order was passed. Even though there was no stay order since Ops were parties to the said IAs 1459/2007 they could not proceed to make payment. So also for the reason that Original petitions 282/2007 and 180/2007 were pending before the I Addl. District Court but it was not intentional one. They paid assured amount when discharge form dated 28.01.2010 was submitted by the complainant. In such circumstances, we cannot order the Ops to pay any interest much less as prayed for by the complainant. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the Appeal.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED 09.04.2013.