Kerala

Idukki

CC/59/2021

Shivan P M - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agricultural officer - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :17/03/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 20^th day of July 2022

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.59/2021

Between

Complainant : Sivan P.M.,

Paradiyil House,

Cheenikkuzhy P.O., Idukki – 685 595.

And

Opposite Party : 1 . The Principal Agricultural Officer,

Idukki, Thodupuzha P.O..

2 . The Agricultural Officer,

Krishi Bhavan,

Udumbannoor.

 

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Complainant's case is briefly discussed as follows:-

.
1 . Complainant's wife was a member of special employment scheme in agricultural field for youth. Under the scheme, there was a condition for giving 1 Lakh rupees as after death benefit for all its members.

 

2 . Complainant's wife died on 31/01/2019. As per order number T.K.(2)e-118294/2020 dated 16/01/2021, death claim was allowed, but only Rs.25,000/- was deposited/transferred to complainant's account.

 

3 . Apart from death benefit, there was a special scheme giving benefit of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.60,000/- to members and yet another scheme for monthly pension to members.

 

 

(Cont.....2)

 

-2-

 

4 . According to complainant, after his wife's death, he was entitled to receive Rs.1 Lakh as benefit, but he got only Rs.25,000/- from opposite parties. They have not given balance Rupees 75,000/- to complainant. This is service deficiency on them part. Hence he prayed that to get Rs.75,000/- along with 12% interest from opposite parties may be allowed.

 

5 . Upon notice, opposite parties have entered appearance and filed written version.

 

6 . According to opposite parties, it is admitted that complainant's wife was a member in special employment scheme for youth in agricultural field by paying Rs.100/- as registration fee and Rs.1000/- as share of the project in 1994 which was stated by State Government. As per this scheme in 1994-95, it is recorded in guidelines and member card that when a member dies, heirs are entitled to get benefit of Rs.25,000/- to 1 Lakh. But, Government was convinced that it is not possible to implement the scheme. Therefore it was amended by the Government and order GO (MS) No.183/2015 dated 29/09/2015 was issued. As per this order, if a member died before he was 60 years old, heirs are entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as a one time benefit and this decision is made final by agricultural director. Hence, as per the Government order, opposite parties have given Rs.25,000/- to complainant. As per the existing government order, it is not possible to allow Rs.75,000/- as a balance benefit to complainant. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

 

7 . Complainant has adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit and producing documents. He was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral evidence adduced by opposite parties. They had produced one document and it was marked as Ext.R1.

 

8 . The point which arise for consideration is

 

(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

(b) If so, what relief he is entitled to?

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

 

The point is considered.

 

We have heard the complainant, Opposite parties or his counsel were not present on hearing date. Hence they could not be heard. Complainant has submitted that he had received only Rs.25,000/- and as per the circular, he is entitled to receive Rs.67,500/-instead of Rs.75,000/- as claimed from opposite parties. We have perused the evidence on records. As per Ext.P1, it is reported that benefit after death to be given is from Rs.25,000/- to 1 Lakh. However, it was amended by Government Circular No.183/2015 dated 29/09/2015. At that time wife of complainant was alive. There is no evidence to show that members were not informed about -R1. Hence R1 is the existing circular with respect to the special employment scheme benefit which is applicable. Under this circular, it is seen that heirs of death persons in this scheme are only entitled for Rs.25,000/-. As per that, opposite parties have given Rs.25,000/- to complainant's account and he received the amount and admitted in the complaint. There is no other evidence to prove the allegation against the opposite parties. This existing circular was released much before the death of the complainant's wife who had died in 2019. Therefore, opposite parties can only give the benefit to complainant as per the guidelines in the existing circular. Complainant has deposed that he received Rs.25,000/- from opposite parties. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 20^th day of July 2022.

 

Sd/-

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(Cont.....4)

 

-4-

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Sivan

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of social security fund last page.

Ext.P2 - Copy of death certificate

Ext.P3 - Copy of bank pass book

Ext.P4 - Notice from Agricultural officer

Ext.P5 – Order dated 16/01/2021.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 – Order dated 29/09/2015.

 

 

Forwarded by Order

 

 

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR