Dismissed

The Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) v. Smt. G. Sarojamma

Telangana HC19 Apr 2012WP/20684/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Postal Department against a State Consumer Commission order rejecting the insurer's claim to deny payment of a life insurance policy. The court held that the tribunal findings were based on evidence and no error appeared on the face of the record to warrant writ intervention.

What did the court decide?

No costs.

The Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) Vs Smt. G… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.20684 of 2005

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy)

¶4

This writ petition is filed against order dated 27.12.2004 passed in F.A.No.689 of 2002 on the file of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad confirming order dated 10.11.2000 passed in C.D.No.11 of 1999 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor, Chittoor district with a request to quash the same.

¶5

The respondent is the mother of one Galla Nagaraju. Her son during his lifetime insured his life with the Government of India, Department of Posts, Rural Postal Services on 4.4.1996 for Rs.25,000/- keeping her as his nominee of that policy. The proposal was accepted on 4.4.1996 and the risk commenced from 4.4.1996 itself. Her son died in Balaji Nursing Home, Madanapalle on 26.5.1996 at 6 p.m. due to cardiac arrest. The death intimation was sent to the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Madanapalle through the Branch Post Office and also through the Mandal Revenue Officer, Somala. Thereafter, she claimed the amount under the policy sending necessary documents. The respondents did not settle her claim on the ground that the policy was accepted only after the death of the life assured which was intimated to her. Consequently, she filed C.D.No.11 of 1999 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Chittoor which was allowed on the ground that as per the record the policy came into effect from 4.4.1996 and the life assured died while the policy was in force and the petitioners failed to place any plausible evidence to

¶6

repudiate the claim directing the respondent to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- with simple interest at 18% per annum from the date of the death of the deceased i.e. on 26.5.1996 till the date of realization of the amount and also pay costs of Rs.500/-. Consequently, the petitioners preferred the appeal in F.A.No.889 of 2002 before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad which was dismissed, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends as follows: The policy was sent to the address of the life assured after his death and concerned Branch Post Master i.e. father of the life assured instead of returning the cover to them served it on the nominee (complainant) in collusion with her. The petitioner made enquiries in accordance with Rule RPLI/DC.III/99 dated 17.12.1998 of their Circle Officer, Hyderabad and came to know that the life assured committed suicide on 26.5.1996 before completion of two months from the date of taking the policy in question i.e. RPLI Policy and accordingly, submitted report to the 2^nd petitioner who thereby submitted his report to the Post Master General, Kurnool. By virtue of para 24 of RPLI notification dated 15.3.1995 which contains RPLI rules, no claim shall lie against the department in case the life insured has committed suicide within two years of acceptance of the policy. He further contends that the deceased paid the first premium towards taking the policy on 4.4.1996 and in the absence of the actual knowledge of death, the policy was accepted by the petitioner posthumously on 27.9.1997 and thereby the claim for the amount was rejected vide letter dated 11.3.1998 and therefore at any stretch of imagination, the respondent is not entitled for the sum assured. He contends that the State

¶8

Commission erred in law in dismissing F.A.No.689 of 2002 on its file along with two other appeals. He further contends that the available alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Act is not a bar to move the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the apparent error found in the orders of the District Forum and State Commission. Ultimately, he pleads for setting aside the order of the State Commission.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the State Commission properly disposed of the matter upholding her claim and apart from that when the petitioners have got an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, the writ petition is not tenable and there are no grounds to entertain the writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

The parties argued touching all the relevant points. The writ petition has been pending since the year 2005, therefore we have decided it to dispose of the matter on merits being proper.

¶11

The District Forum upheld the claim of the complainant on the ground that Ex.A2, a copy of the policy issued by the Department of Rural Postal Life Insurance, Kurnool Region contains necessary details of the life assured, the value of the policy and it also provides that the proposal dated 1.4.1996 was accepted on 4.4.1996 treating the advance amount of Rs.462/paid by the life assured sent along with the proposal form as the first premium under the policy and the life assured was requested to pay the subsequent premiums under the policy. The District Forum also observed that as per the record, the proposal was accepted on 8.4.1996 and the policy came into effect on 4.4.1996.

¶12

The State Commission mainly confirmed the order of the District Forum in view of the contents of Ex.A2. Before the State Commission, on behalf of the petitioner, judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1906 2004 was referred with regards to certain circular orders and contended that by virtue of those circular orders if the insured died within 1/2/3 year or years of the commencement of the risk, then only 35%/60%/90% of the policy amount will be paid under the policy respectively, but that plea was rejected by the State Commission on the ground that those circular orders were not in force when the policy in question was issued. In this writ petition, the genuineness of Ex.A2 has not been questioned. Thus, prima facie it provides that the original of Ex.A2 was issued by a competent authority in the department and is valid.

¶13

On the other hand, no specific contention was raised with regards to para 24 of the said RPLI Rules before the State Commission about which a plea is taken in this writ petition to the effect that by virtue of that rule if a life insured died within two years of the acceptance of the policy, no claim can be made under the policy.

¶14

In this writ petition, the following points can be considered; (1) Whether the findings of the District Forum and State Commission were based on the evidence adduced and the consequential points raised and (2) whether there is apparent error on the face of the record. On the overall appreciation of the material available and the contentions raised, it is categorical that the District Forum on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly Ex.A2 about which no dispute was raised upheld the claim of the complainant and the findings of the District Forum were properly upheld by the State Commission rejecting the

¶15

contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no error apparent on the face of the record with regards to the findings of the District Forum or the State Commission. This writ petition can be entertained only when there is error apparent on the record. In other words, when there is no error apparent on the record, this writ petition is not maintainable. No new pleas can be allowed to be raised herein, thereby consequently there are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed therefore.

¶16

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶18

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶19

Date: .4.2012 DA

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.20684 of 2005

¶22

.4.2012

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.20684 of 2005

¶26

Date: .4.2012

¶27

Between: The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Madanapalle Sub-Division, Madanapalle and another

¶28

.. Petitioners

¶29

And G.Sarojamma .. Respondent

The Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) v. Smt. G. Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) v. Smt. G. Sarojamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K C Vannappa Vs The Director

S. Srinivas Rao, Vs Special Court under a.P.Land Grabbing

K.V. Narsimhulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mohd. Abdul Rahman

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Mohd. Salman

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs K. Venkatesh