BEFORE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT VIJAYAWADA
FA No.220 OF 2011 AGAINST S.R.No.2535 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II VIJAYAWADA
Between:
Muppasani Siva Parvathi
W/o late Rambabu, Budawada Village,
Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna Dist.
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Executive Director,
Central Wool Development Board
Government of India, Ministry of Textiles
C-3, Near Shastri Circle, Shastri Nager
Jodhpur-342003, Rajasthan State
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry
H.No.10-2-289, Shanti Nagar,
Masab Tank Hyderabad-028
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants Sri J.Lokesh Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent Party in Person
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member.)
***
1. The complainant has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum which held the complaint not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant’s husband is a shepherd and he died due to electrocution on 8-05-2009.The Police, Penuganchiprolu registered a case in crime number 117 of 2009 on 8-05-2009 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased husband of the appellant and the Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Jaggiahpet conducted report of postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. The Government of India had introduced a social welfare insurance scheme “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” against the risk on the life of the persons who reared sheep. The scheme was in force from 2007-08 to 2011-12 and the first respondent board has to implement the scheme through Nodal Agency and the insurer of the scheme is Life Insurance Corporation Of India. The persons who reared sheep and in the age group of 18-59 years are eligible to be covered under the scheme for a sum of `1,50,000/- out of which 50% of the benefits would be paid to the nominee immediately after the death of the sheep breeder in an accident and the rest of the amount would be paid to the nominee on submission of the relevant documents.
3. The appellant’s husband’s name was not enumerated; the benefits under the scheme were not paid to the appellant. The respondents had not furnished reasons for not granting the benefits under the scheme. The appellant got issued notice dated 18-10-2010 through her advocate for which there was no response from the respondents.
4. The District Forum returned the complaint on the premise that the deceased is not a member of primary sheep breeder cooperative society and no premium amount was paid on his behalf. The District Forum held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as both respondents reside outside its territorial jurisdiction and the Electricity Department is necessary party to the proceedings as also the District Forum directed the appellant to approach appropriate authority for redressal of her grievance.
5. In support of her claim, the appellant has filed her affidavit and copies of scheme particulars, Inquest Report, Final Report and Death Certificate.
6. The complainant has filed the appeal contending that “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” is a social welfare scheme and the appellant is a consumer in view of the decisions of this Commission and the National Commission. In regard to objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, it is submitted that the appellant resides within the local limits of the District Forum and cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 11(2) of Consumer Protection Act. The subject matter of the complaint is service in relation to provision of insurance under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act.
7. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is consumer and if so the District Forum can entertain the complaint?
8. The appellant claims to be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and she relies upon the guide lines incorporated in the scheme. “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” is introduced during 11th five-year plan to provide insurance cover to shepherd in the case of their natural/accidental death and permanent total/partial disability due to accident. The eligibility prescribed for availing assistance under the “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” is the person must be involved in sheep rearing activities, should be in the age group of 18-59 years. The basic criterion to avail benefits of the scheme is the person being involved in sheep rearing activities and within the age group of 18-59 years. Sheep Breeders who are beneficiary under CWDB schemes are also included in the list of persons eligible to seek benefits of the “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme”.
9. The objective of the scheme intended to extend the benefits on the natural or accidental death of the person involved in sheep rearing activities is restricted its scope by the terms of insurance coverage to accidental death and total or permanent disability of the person involved with sheep rearing activities. The copies of FIR and Inquest Report show that the appellant’s husband is involved with sheep rearing activities and died in an accident on 8.5.2009 when he came into contact with a live wire which fell on the ground on account of gale at Penuganchiprolu village.
10. In the District Collector, Adilabad and others Vs. B.Premala @ Prameela in F.A.No.1913 of 2005 decided on 17.12.2007, this Commission held that the beneficiary under Apadbandu scheme introduced by the state government is a consumer and he can maintain complaint before the District Forum. This Commission observed:
Admittedly the respondent/complainant is a resident of Kubeer Village and her husband died due to snake bite as per Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 is the income certificate dated 28.6.2004 issued by MRO Kubeer and he forwarded the claim of the respondent/complainant to the District Collector for payment of exgratia and the respondent/complainant falls under the category of working beneficiary she is a consumer and because of the Apathbandu scheme introduced by the government of Andhra Pradesh was for the welfare of the people below poverty line and as initially the cause of action arose at Kubeer, we are of the opinion that the respondent/complainant is entitled for the exgratia amount under Apathbandu Scheme.
11. In Y.Yasodhamma and others Vs the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise decided on 28.2.2002, the National Commission held that the license fee paid by a toddy tapper is consideration and he is eligible to claim exgratia under welfare scheme introduced by the state government. The National Commission held:
There is a welfare scheme of the Government of Andhra Pradesh which envisages grant of Ex-Gratia payment of upto Rs.50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased in case of death in such circumstances
12. The National Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.Subramania Iyer v. Official Receiver Quilon, AIR 1958 SCI. The Supreme Court held :
The expression “unless the context otherwise requires” in Sec.2 of the C.P.Act, 1986 implies that the definitions of various words and expression given in this section should be followed generally; but if the context otherwise require than the interpreter has the discretion to adopt such other meaning of the particular word or expression which is harmony with the context of the expression and for this purpose sufficient flexibility is provided by the insertion of these words. The general clauses Act is enacted in order to shorten language used in parliamentary legislation and to avoid repletion of the same word in the course of each piece of legislation. Such a act is not meant to give a hide bound meaning to terms and phase generally occurring in legislation i.e., the reason why the definition section contains the words like “unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context”
13. The guidelines of the “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” do not restrict the benefits to the members of primary sheep breeders’ cooperative society. Any person involved in rearing sheep is eligible to claim benefits under the scheme. The appellant’s husband being a beneficiary under the scheme and died in the accident, the appellant can maintain complaint invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
14. The appellant is resident of Budawada village of Jaggiahpet Mandal in Krishna District. Her husband died at Penganchi Prolu in the same District. The “Sheep Breeders Insurance Scheme” is made applicable through out the length and breadth of the country. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:
11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ’’does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
15. As the cause of action occurred at Penganchi village in Krishna District, the District Forum is competent to entertain the complaint. The District Forum opined that on account death of the appellant’s husband due to electrocution, the Electricity Department is necessary party to the proceedings. The copies of FIR, Inquest Report and Report of Postmortem Examination amply show that the death occurred due to a sudden mishap which is sufficient for the appellant to bring her claim against the respondents. However, the appellant is required to implead the Nodal Agency which is instrumental in identifying an verifying as to the eligibility of the appellant to claim the benefits under the scheme is proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The Nodal Agency is also obligated to submit to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the claim and documents filed by the appellant before it. The complaint without the Nodal Agency is not maintainable. The appellant is permitted to implead the Nodal Agency after her complaint is admitted by the District Forum. We have not expressed our opinion on the merits of the case and any view so expressed would not have any bearing on the District Forum while deciding the complaint .
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to admit the complaint and permit the appellant to implead the Nodal Agency concerned as party to the proceedings. The appellant directed to appear before the District Forum on 12-12-2011 without insisting on issuing of fresh notice.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.01.12.2011
KMK*
