SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 35273

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1. President Jeevana Jyothi Zilla Samakhya – Appellant
Versus
1.Suramalla Rajaiah – Respondent
SC/36/A/746/2020



Petitioner Advocates:M/s. Rupendra Mahendra ,Respondent Advocate:

BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 746 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.86/2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, KARIMNAGAR Between:

1. President, Jeevana Jyothi Zilla Samakhya (Insurance), TTDC Besides Ambedkar Stadium Main Gate, Karimnagar-505001, Represented by its President, Thella Kavitha, W/o T.Lakshman, Aged about 40 years, R/o House No.6-51, Ganneruvaram Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District.

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP), Government of Telangana, H.No.5-10-192, Hermitage Office Complex, HUDA Building, Hillfort Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

………..Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 And:

1. Suramalla Rajaiah, S/o Poshaiah, R/o H.No.4-1/2, Rapalli Village, Gollapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District – 505 532.

……..Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, P&GS, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad-500 063.

……….Respondent No.2/OP No.3 Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 :

M/s. Rupendra Mahendra For the Respondent No.1/Complainant : Notice served Counsel for Respondent No.2/OP No.3 : Sri Srinivas Karra QUORUM :

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

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

WEDNESDAY, THE 20 th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar, dated 12.03.2020 in CC 86 of 2015, where under the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed with joint and several liability to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 11.03.2015 till realization besides costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The averments of the complaint are that Smt. Suramalla Lakshmi, is the wife of the complainant and she was a member in “Abhaya Hastam Scheme” towards insurance and pension benefits with Master Policy No.514888 and LIC No.904538 which commenced on 01.11.2009; that this “Abhaya Hastam Scheme” is applicable to the self-help group members who are in the age group of 15 to 59 years; that the opposite party No.1 & 2 are the facilitators; that regularly the premium was being paid; that the life assured unfortunately died due to accidental fall in the agricultural well on 19.06.2011; that Nodal agencies have paid Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the scheme; that the complainant being a nominee submitted all requisite documents to the opposite parties for the balance amount of Rs.70,000/-, but it was not settled; that the opposite parties on one pretext or the other not settled the claim and made it pending; that on 07.02.2015, the complainant got issued a legal notice by a registered post which was served on them, still the claim was not settled; that the opposite parties repudiated the claim on the ground that the life assured was unsound mind, hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the counter of opposite party No.2 which is adopted by the opposite party No.1 are that the life assured was the member of “Abhaya Hastam Scheme” and premium was being paid regularly; that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are facilitators; that the opposite party No.3 is competent to settle the claim and opposite parties No.1 & 2 have no role in the same; that the opposite party No.3 is entitled to cause investigation of the death and after investigation, can reject claim on the ground that the life assured was mentally unsound, that the complaint is barred by time; that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. With this requested to dismiss the complaint.

4. The brief averments of the counter of opposite party No.3 are almost in the same lines; that as per the scheme Rs.75,000/- is payable to the nominee, in case of death disability of a member due to acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top