By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the petitioner is that petitioner’s husband Sri. C.A. Johnson had joined in a kuri with the respondents vide chitty No.6/04 and ticket No.65. The kuri amount has been auctioned and Sri. Johnson died on 12.5.05. The kuri amount was for one lakh rupees. The kuri had started on 26.7.04. On 1.5.05 the respondents had declared a benefit scheme for the auctioned subscribers who had not made default in payment of the kuri. As per the scheme the deceased Johnson was also a beneficiary and the legal heirs are entitled for the benefit. Hence on 27.6.05an application has submitted to avail the benefit, but not provided. Lawyer notice sent, but no remedy. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. The counter in brief is as follows: As per the chitty liability waiver scheme the beneficiary should not complete 60 years of age at the time of termination of the kuri. The deceased Johnson had the age of more than 60 years. After that the age limit has been increased upto 65 years and also Rs.100/- to be paid as membership. This condition had been published in newspapers. The time for membership was 30.6.05 and later extended to 31.7.05. Petitioner’s husband did not remit Rs.100/- towards membership. Hence the legal heirs are not entitled for the scheme benefit. Hence dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are:-<br /> <br /> (1) Is there deficiency in service?<br /> (2) If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the scheme?<br /> (3) Other reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P10 and Exts. R1 and R2.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: The complainant is the wife of deceased Johnson who was the kuri subscriber. The kuri had been auctioned by the deceased and the instalments were paid without any default. According to the petitioner, on 1.5.05 the respondents were declared the chitty liability waiver scheme. In the counter no whisper about the date of declaration of the said scheme. Exts. P3 to P7 are the letters showing the various dates of payment of kuries. Ext. P3 is the letter of remittance in the month of 2005 February. In that letter there is intimation of the benefit scheme. There is no condition for payment of Rs.100/- as the membership fee. Ext. P8 is the receipt showing the payment in the month of 2005 June. In 2005 May petitioner had paid the kuri amount on 9th day. Ext. P4 to P7 are the letters showing the remittance in the months of 2005 March, April and May. In those documents there is nothing about the benefit and the remittance of Rs.100/-. Ext. P8 is the letter showing remittance in the month of June. In that letter it is written that Rs.100/- to be paid towards the annual fees. So the payment of Rs.100/- is not applicable in the case of Sri. Johnson. On 12.5.05 Johnson had been died and at that time there was no direction for remittance of Rs.100/-. One more point to be discussed in this aspect. Ext. R2 is the copy of circular No.41/05 produced by the second respondent, which shows the withdrawal of the scheme with effect from 1.4.05. In the counter there is no averment in this regard. Moreover, Ext. P8 which shows the remittance in the month of 2005 June contains the declaration of the benefit and payment of Rs.100/-. If the scheme was withdrawn there is no need of such an endorsement in Ext. P8. In Ext. P8 one condition is also added. So the respondents are liable to perform the benefit declared. <br /> <br /> 6. Points-2 & 3: Another aspect is to be discussed about the age of deceased Johnson. As per the scheme the subscriber should not complete 60 years of age at the time of termination of the kuri. Later the age limit increased upto 65. Ext. P10 is the copy of passport, which shows that the date of birth was 24.6.1948. The termination will be 2012 October. So the age limit is also within the prescribed period. In this aspect also this person is en titled for the benefit. Rejection of this benefit even if conditions are fulfilled is a deficiency in service on the part of the K.S.F.E. Hence the complainant is entitled for the benefit of the scheme.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to provide the benefit of the liability waiver scheme to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19th day of August 2008. <br />