KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 279/2008 JUDGMENT DATED:21..06..2010. PRESENT SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Secretary, Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath, Velliyamattom.P.O, : APPELLANT Thodupuzha, Idukki District. (By Adv:Sri.C.S.Rajmohan) Vs. 1. Manoj.B, Mullackal House, Pannimuttam.P.O, Thodupuzha, Idukki Dist. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance- Company Limited., 3rd floor, Kannankiri Estate, Marine Drive, Shanmugham Road, Kochi-682 031. : RESPONDENTS (By Adv:Sri.Prasannakumaran Nair) 3. A.J.Varkey, Village Extention Officer, Velliyamuttam.P.O, Thodupuzha. JUDGMENT SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is directed against the order dated:28th July 2008 of the CDRF, Idukki in CC.No:50/07. The appellant was the 2nd opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 were the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 3 respectively in the said consumer complaint No:50/97. It was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in implementing Kudumba Arogyasree Insurance Policy. The complainant therein joined the Arogyasree General Insurance Policy which was implemented by the opposite parties 1 to 3. But subsequently the opposite parties could not proceed with the said scheme because of the direction issued by the District Kudumbasree Mission Coordinator. The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in their failure to implement the said scheme. The complainant had also remitted Rs.450/- towards the said scheme and the same was accepted by the 2nd opposite party, the Secretary, Velliyamattom Grama Panchayath, Thodupuzha. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that they acted according to the directions given by the Government of Kerala and they were prevented from implementing the said insurance scheme because of the subsequent direction given by the Government. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 2. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the 1st opposite party DW1, the Manager of the 1st opposite party was examined. Second opposite party, the Secretary of Velliyamatom Grama Panchayath was also examined as DW2. Exts.R1 to R7 documents were also marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties 2 and 3 to return the premium amount paid by the complainant and also with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.8000/- with cost of Rs.1500/-. Hence the present appeal by the 2nd opposite party. 3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondents 1 and 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd opposite party and 2nd respondent/1st opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the Arogyasree General Inusurance Scheme was introduced by the Government by virtue of the R1 Government order (MS) NO:10/06 dated:13/1/2006 and subsequently the said scheme was withdrawn by the Government vide R4(a) and R4(b) Government letters. He also relied on Ext.R7 letter dated:8/12/2006 issued by the Secretary to Government to the Executive Director, Kudumbasree, Thiruvananthapuram and vehemently argued for the position that there was no failure on the part of the opposite parties in introducing the aforesaid Arogyasree Insurance Scheme. Thus, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/1st opposite party supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. He argued for the position that no policy was issued by the 1st opposite party ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited and that the 1st opposite party/Insurance Company had no liability to cover the risk. He also submitted that the complaint in CC:50/07 is liable to be dismissed. 5. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in implementing the Arogyasree General Insurance Scheme? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in passing the impugned order fastening liability on opposite parties 2 and 3? 6. Point Nos:1 and 2:- R1 is the copy of the Government Order (MS)No:10/06 dated:13/1/06. By virtue of the said Government order, the Arogyasree General Insurance Project was introduced. The 1st opposite party was the Insurance Company under the said scheme and that the opposite parties 2 and 3 were the Government machinery which were entrusted with the work of implementation of the Arogyasree General Insurance Scheme. It is true that the complainant joined the Arogyasree General Insurance Project and paid the insurance premium of Rs.450/- to the 3rd opposite party Village Extension Officer. Exts.R2 and R3 demand drafts produced from the side of the 2nd opposite party would make it clear that the opposite parties 2 and 3 were very much interested in implementing the Arogyasree General Insurance Project which was introduced by the Government as the policy of the Government vide R1 Government order dated:13/1/2006. But, subsequently the Government itself directed the opposite parties 2 and 3 through the District Kudumbasree Mission Coordinator issued direction to withdraw from implementing the said scheme. As per R4(a) and R4(b) the District Kudumbasree Mission Coordinator to withdraw from implementing the said scheme. As per R4(a) and R4(b) the District Kudumbasree Mission coordinator directed the 1st opposite party/insurance company to return the DDs received from the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayat. Thereby the 2nd opposite party, the Secretary of the Velliyamatoom Grama Panchayat kept the amounts covered by R2 and R3 demand drafts. As a result of the R4(a) and R4(b) Government letters, the 1st opposite party/insurance company was not in a position to issue the insurance policy. Subsequently by Government letter dated:4/7/09 issued by the Executive Director Kudumbasree to the District Mission coordinators there was direction to disburse the amounts collected from the beneficiaries of the said scheme. 7. The appellant/2nd opposite party appeared in person and submitted that there were 2502 beneficiaries under the proposed insurance scheme and that in the light of the R4(a) and R4(b) directions issued by the Government, the amount collected from the beneficiaries has been disbursed partly. It is also submitted that out of the 2502 beneficiaries a total of 192 beneficiaries were given amounts collected from them and that notice was issued to the other beneficiaries, but they failed to turn up and that the appellant is taking earnest attempt to refund the amount collected from those beneficiaries. The appellant has also filed an affidavit to that effect. Thus, the materials on record would show that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in CC.50/2007. 8. It is true that the complainant was denied the benefit of getting insured under the benevolent scheme. The Government who introduced the scheme was not prepared to proceed with the same. The opposite parties were not in a position to proceed with the implementation of the scheme without the assistance and direction of the Government. The complainant has to proceed against the Government who introduced the scheme and subsequently withdrew the scheme. At any rate, the opposite parties could not be found fault with. They are to be treated as innocent in the matter. The Forum below cannot be justified in passing the impugned order fastening the liability on opposite parties 2 and 3. This Commission is pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:28th July 2008 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC.50/07 is set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL. | 
