KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 516/03

JUDGMENT DATED: 24.3.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

1. Managing Director,                                   : APPELLANTS

    Kerala Kaumudi Pvt.Ltd.,

    Kaumudi Building.

    Thiurvananthapuram,

    Petta – 24.

2.  Manager, Kerala Kaumudi Pvt.Ltd.,

     Kozhikode.

(By Adv.P.A.Ahamed)

                 vs.

1. Smt.Bhargavi,                                          : RESPONDENTS

    W/o late Ramankutty,

    Thottathu Veedu, Puzhakkattiri.P.O.,

     Perinthalmanna, Malappuram Dist..

(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura, counsel for R1)

2. Sri.Vijayakumar.K.,

    Kiliyengal Veedu,

    Puzhakkattiri, Malappuram – 679 321.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

            The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP.189/2002 in the file of CDRF, Malappuram.  The appellants are under orders to pay to the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from 18.7.2001 and a cost of Rs.2000/-

          2. The  case of the complainant is that her husband was a subscriber of the Kerala Kaumudi Daily and that the  above Daily had published an insurance benefit scheme to the subscribers.  The husband died on  26.9.99 in an accident. Hence she has claimed the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

          3. The opposite parties 1 and 2  had contended that the husband of the complainant had not joined  in the   insurance scheme.  Hence he was not a member.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefits.

          4. The 3^rd opposite party who is the agent of the Daily has filed version mentioning that at the time of the  introduction of the policy he was not the agent and that at the time the agent was one Krishnankutty.  He has also mentioned that the deceased husband of the complainant was a subscriber and was also a member of the insurance scheme submitted by the opposite parties.

          5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P7 and R1.

          6. At the outset it has to be noted that as per R1 copy of the scheme the amount assured for death is  only Rs.1,00,000/-.  The Forum has directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- which is totally illegal.

          7. Through out in the complaint as well as in the letters sent by the complainant and also in the lawyer notice the only contention is that the deceased was a subscriber of Kerala Kaumudi Daily.  The complainant has no case that her deceased husband  had joined in the scheme.  The Forum has exclusively placed reliance on the version of the 3^rd  opposite party/agent that the deceased was a member of the scheme.  No evidence in this regard at the instance of the 3^rd opposite party was adduced.  Further it is also to be noted that at the time of starting of the scheme the 3^rd opposite party was not the agent of the news paper.  In the circumstances the reliance placed by the Forum on the version of the 3^rd opposite party is misplaced.

          8. The terms for the subscribers  for joining the insurance scheme is specified in Ext.R1.  Ext.R1 provides that the application forms published in the news paper or received from the agents alone will be considered.  It is also provided  that the application should be  properly filled up and  in case of false recitals  the applications will be rejected.  It is also mentioned that only those who have submitted bonafide  and true details the applicants would be entitled for joining the insurance claims.  It is also mentioned that the applicants should confirm from the agent as to whether they are admitted as members of the scheme.  It is the specific case of the appellant that the husband of the complainant was not a member of the scheme.  Ext.R1 also contains the application form wherein agents certification is also required.  We find that the complainant has no case that such an application was submitted by her husband.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to substantiate her case.  The appellants have also mentioned in the version filed the names of the persons whose application forms have been forwarded  by the local agent.  Further the insurance company has also not been made a party.  In the circumstance  we find that the order of the Forum can not be sustained.  The same is set aside.  Appeal is allowed.

          Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently.

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                        : MEMBER

ps