G PADMAVATHI Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 66/2001 on the file of District Forum, Anantapur, the complainant preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants husband opened an account 'Abhaya Gold Savings Bank Account No. 79 in Andhra Bank on 25.3.1998 paying Rs. 1,100 for which he would be insured for Rs. 1,00,000 with the second opposite party, insurance company. The complainant is the nominee. On 13.6.1999 when the complainants husband was in the house the associates of Dharmavaram M.L.As. brother K. Pedda Reddy, J. Sreerami Reddy, Linga Reddy, Prathapa Reddy and Siva Reddy forcibly took the insured in a jeep. Even after lapse of two hours, he did not return home. Thereafter on inquiry, the complainants family was told that the insured had left to his village. When the insured did not turn up on 14.6.1999 a complaint was lodged at Yellanur Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No. 35/1999. After investigation, the police informed the complainant that her husband was murdered and the body was burnt to ashes. After receipt of information from the police, the complainant made a claim before the first opposite party for payment of the insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and submitted all the documents. The complainant even got issued a legal notice on 6.9.2000 to both the opposite parties for which opposite party No. 1 replied on 11.9.2000 stating that they have already submitted the claim to the second opposite party and a reminder was also written but there was no response. Vexed with their attitude, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction for payment of the policy amount.

(3.) SECOND opposite party filed counter contending that the complaint is barred by limitation and contended that there is no documentary evidence to show that the insured was murdered on 13.6.1999 and even if it is proved that the deceased was murdered on 13.6.1999, it is a result of the deceased committing breach of law with criminal intent and this is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, they are not liable to pay the policy amount. They further contend that the complainant failed to comply with the necessary documents and, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their behalf. Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A11 and Exs. B1 and B2, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.