BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.195 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.11/2019., DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, WARANGAL Between:

United India Insurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Bancassurance Division H.No.3-5-817&818, 7th Floor, United India Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 And:

1. Mrs.Mohammed Naseema Sulthana W/o Late Dastagiri, Age: 48 yrs, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 18-3-72, Ursu, Khila, Warangal – 506005.

……..R1/Complainant

2. Union Bank of India (formerly known as Andhra Bank)

Rep by its Br Manager, Shambunipet Branch, H.No.19-9-370/A, Shambunipet, Warangal Urban Dist.

(R2/Opposite Party No.2 is only formal party)

……..R2/Opposite Party No.2 Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Party: M/s Suri. Sravan Kumar Counsel for the R1/Complainant: Sri K.Karunakar QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V. SESHU BABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 07^th DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHU BABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL) 01. This appeal is filed by the opposite party No.1 U/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2021 in CC No.11/2019 by the DCDRC Warangal, where under the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed and OP.No.1 was directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of death of life assured till the date of realization besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

02. The brief averments of the complaint in CC.NO.11/2019 are that the complainant is the wife of life assured late Mohammed Dastagiri who was having Abhaya Gold Accident Insurance Cover Savings Bank Account No.138210100044579 with Opposite Party No.2; that in May 2015, he obtained Prime Minister Suraksha Bheema Yojana Life Insurance Policy for assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP.No.2 with an annual premium of Rs.12/- with date of commencement on 25.05.2015, and regularly paid the premiums during his life time; that the life assured died on 21.08.2018 in a road traffic accident at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and case No.600329554 was registered by the General Directorate for traffic; that the complainant being the nominee approached the OP.No2 and submitted a claim form by enclosing all documents, but it was repudiated by OP.No.1 vide reference dated 14.01.2018 stating that the life assured died outside the Geographical Jurisdiction of India; that it was repudiated on flimsy grounds, which amounts to deficiency of service; hence, the complaint in all claiming Rs.4,87,000/-.

03. The brief averments of written version of Opposite Party No.1 is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs of the deceased; that the policy covers risk of life assured/permanent disability or death occurred within the Geographical Jurisdiction of India, and as life assured died outside India, the claim is repudiated; that there is no deficiency of service; that there is an exclusion clause in the policy in the above lines as stated supra; that the claim amount is exaggerated. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint. The Opposite Party No.2 is set ex-parte on 20.05.2019.

04. Before the commission below the complainant filed evidence affidavit as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Mr. N.Kushma Kumar Senior Divisional Manager filed evidence affidavit Rw1 and got Ex. B1 to B4 for the OP.No.1.

05. The Commission below settled the following points for discussion:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1&2?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

3. If so, for what relief?

06. Having heard both sides, and basing on the material available on record the Commission below passed the order as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same the opposite party No.1 filed the present appeal with the following grounds.

 The order of the Commiss