The main legal point established in the judgment is that facilitators of insurance policies may be held jointly liable for insurance claims, and the awareness of the insured regarding the conditions of the insurance cover is crucial in determining liability.

ORDER :

Noushad Ali, President

Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed this appeal, directed against the order dated 5.8.2015 in C.C. No. 242/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. By the said order the Forum has passed an award in favour of respondents 1 to 5, directing to pay Rs. 50,000 towards death benefit of the insured with interest @ 9% p.a. from 22.4.2014 till realization along with costs of Rs. 3,000. The appellants are made jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount along with respondent No. 5/Opposite party No. 3.

3. In this appeal, the appellants are not aggrieved by the award as such, but questioning the liability fastened against them on the ground that they are only facilitators for securing policies to their members and hence they cannot be made liable to pay the insurance amount.

4. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Chalia, Advocate appearing for the appellants. Counsel for the respondents/complainants is absent.

5. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 is the wife of late Pila Tammi Naidu and respondent No. 2 is his daughter. Respondent No. 3 is the daughter - in - law and respondents 4 and 5 are his grandchildren.

6. Late Pila Tammi Naidu obtained membership from appellant No. 1 - Road Safety Club Private Limited on payment of the requisite fee of Rs. 3,600 . The term of the membership was 36 months commencing from 25.3.2016. By virtue of the membership late Tammi Naidu was given insurance coverage through respondent No. 6 - M/s Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company Limited for the period from 26.4.2006 to 25.4.2007 for an assured sum of Rs. 50,000, as per Ex. Al certificate of insurance. Pila Tammi Naidu died on 16.2.2007 and his son Sathyanarayana, who was his nominee pre-deceased him on 19.1.2007. In the circumstances the respondents 1 to 5 herein being the legal heirs claimed the insurance amount by submitting the requisite documents including the succession certificate (Ex.A8) obtained from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vuyyuru. Inasmuch as their claim was not settled despite complying with requirements and issuance of legal notice, the respondents 1 to 5 filed the complaint in question before the Forum. They filed Exs. Al to A10 documents in support of their claim.

7. The appellants herein contested the complaint mainly on the ground that their role was limited to the extent of enrolling membership of the interested persons and arranging the insurance policies to them. Their contention was that once the arrangement of securing policies is made the claims should be settled only by the insurance companies and the members cannot hold them responsible for any deficiency or defect either in the insurance cover or in the settlements. Therefore, according to them they are not liable for the claim and the claim if any should be discharged only by respondent No. 5-M/s. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. They filed Exs. Bl to B3 documents in support of their case.

8. Respondent No. 5 resisted the claim stating that it did not receive the claim documents and that the premium amount was not received by them and as such it was not aware of the issuance of the insurance policy.

9. The Forum after examining the evidence on record found the claim made by the respondents 1 to 5 admissible and as such allowed the complaint.

10. It is to be noted that respondent No. 5 Insurance Company has not challenged the order and thus the award passed against them has become final.

11. As already stated that the appellants are aggrieved by the order since a joint and several liability has been fastened against them. Mr. Praveen Kumar Challa, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants argued that the Forum is not right in making the appellants jointly liable. His contention is that the appellants are acting only as facilitators and securing the insurance policy for the benefit of their members. The Counsel argued that the deceased / insured while obtaining the membership was aware of this fa