O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner's husband Sri. P.V Maniyan is a subscriber in the chitty No. 3/04 with sala of Rs. 50,000/- conducted by the opposite party. The petitioner has 2 tickets in the above chitties commenced from 5..2..2004. The date of termination of the chitty is on 5..3..2008. According to the petitioner he insured both citties with the opposite party. Petitioner states that up to 14 instalments, there was no arrears pending to the opposite party. The husband of the petitioner died on 13..3..2005. So, according to the petitioner the liability of the petitioner for further instalment is to be waived, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance of liability waiver entered between the petitioner and opposite party. The petitioner on 24..4..2005 filed a complaint to the opposite party. The <br /> -2-<br /> opposite party sent a reply to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of the liability waiver scheme because, the subscriber, diseased Maniyan crossed the age of 60 yrs. at the time of termination of the chitty. The petitioner states that now the opposite party is taking coarsive steps against the surities. So the petitioner seeks for a direction of the Forum to the opposite party to give benefit of the insurance to the petitioner.<br /> The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable or tenable either in law or on facts. The opposite party admitted that the petitioner was a subscriber in chitty No. 3/04 with sala of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite party contented that as per the 333rd Board meeting held on 9..3..2004 they decided to accept a liability waiver scheme for chitty subscribers. According to the opposite party this benefit is applicable to those subscribers who died after prizing the chitty only if the chitty is up-to-date in remittance. Moreover, the above benefit is made applicable to only those deceased subscriber, had been alive, would not have crossed 60 years of age on the normal date of termination of chitty in which he was a subscriber. According to the opposite party the scheme was introduced with effect from 1..4..2004 only, whereas, the above captioned chitty of the petitioner was started on 5..2..2004. So, the petitioner cannot demand for benefit of liability waiver scheme and scheme was not in existance at the time when the aforsaid chitty started. So, they contented that the case of the petitioner that captioned chitties were insured is not true. The opposite party contented that the benefit is availed to only persons who remitted the premium for the scheme. Here according to opposite party petitioner has not remitted the premium<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> amounting Rs. 100/-. So, the petition itself is not maintainable before this Forum. Opposite party further contented that the opposite party introduced the captioned scheme with effect from 1..4..2004 only. Whereas the above chitty was commenced from 5..2..2004. So the benefit will be applicable only to those subscribers who joined in the chitty after 1..4..2004. The scheme has no retrospective operation so, the claim of the petitioner is not admissible. The opposite party admitted the receipt of a complaint of the petitioner. According to them the reason stating true facts was communicated to the petitioner. So, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the petition with their costs. <br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed both parties Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The opposite party has a defanit case that the petition is not maintainable because, the petitioner has not joined in the liability waiver scheme by remitting an amount of Rs. 100/- The opposite party raised the said contention of maintainability in the version but the petitioner has not denied the said fact in her affidavit. Furthermore petitioner has not produced any documents to prove that the petitioner has joined in the liability waiver scheme by paying Rs. 100/-. <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> As per section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, Consumer Means:<br /> i) Any person buys any goods for considration<br /> ii) hires or avails any service for consideration<br /> Here the deceased Maniyan or the petitioner the beneficiary has not availed any service for a consideration.<br /> So we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So, we are of the opinion that petition is not maintainable. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me trranscribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2008.