ARAVAPALLI OMKARAM Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
LAWS(APCDRC)-2004-6-1
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 07,2004

ARAVAPALLI OMKARAM Appellant
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant's son insured his life under 'janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy' No.150904/47/51/01130/98 for Rs.5 lakhs and that the complainant herein is the nominee. On 5.8.1998 an amount of Rs.1,625/ - by way of a cheque No.935771 drawn on Andhra Bank was paid to the opposite party towards premium amount for the insurance period from 5.8.1998 to 4.8.2011. On 31.10.1998 at 5.00 a. m. , the complainant's son was kidnapped by one Ramakrishna Reddi and some others, and the complainant's wife lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Town Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Cr. No.518/1998. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the said Ramakrishna Reddi and brought out certain facts which were disclosed by him that he, with the help of other three persons who are the hired goondas, kidnapped the insured and murdered him, and the corpse was destroyed to avoid evidence on that score, the Station House Officer, Narasaraopet Town P. S. altered the section of law from 364, IPC to Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Ramakrishna Reddi was sent to judicial remand. As such, the complainant came to know about the death of his son. Thereafter. the complainant and his wife made several representations to secure information and also requested for transfer of the case to CBCID, but received no response. At that stage, the three hired killers were also arrested by the police and gave their confessional statements stating that they have thrown out the dead body of the insured in Nagarjuna Sagar Canal in Prakasam District. Later, the case was transferred to CBCID and the complainant came to know that even the Tissue Culture revealed that the skeleton, which was traced by the police, is that of the son of complainant. On 26.11.1998, the complainant got issued a notice to the opposite party but did not receive any reply. Despite repeated requests, the opposite party did not settle the claim and, therefore, the complainant approached this Commission seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs with interest at 18% p. a. from 26.11.1998 together with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and costs of Rs.5,000/ -.
(2.) THE opposite party filed a counter admitting that the insured has taken 'janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy' by paying an amount of Rs.1,625/ - on 5.8.1998 covering the period of insurance from 5.8.1998 to 4.8.2011. It submits that as per the conditions of the policy, if the insured shall sustain any bodily injuries during any accident caused by outward, violent and visible means, then, the company shall pay the insured sum, that was set forth in the conditions and the same was given to the insured at the time of taking of the policy. The opposite party denies the knowledge of the alleged kidnap and murder of the insured and the subsequent declaration of the police authorities. The main contention of the opposite party is that the Insurance Company is liable only when the insured is involved solely and directly in the accident, otherwise, they are not liable to pay the insurance claim amount, much less, the compensation and, therefore, they submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
(3.) THE complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence and also Ex. A -1 to Ex. A -7 are marked on his behalf. The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as sought for in the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.