DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  12^th day of May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 08/03/2018  

                         CC/39/2018

Ramani N.S.,

S/o Narayana Swamy,

Palakkad Karottu madom,

Mathoor Agraharam P.O.,

Palakkad – 678 632                            -                       Complainant

(By Adv. V.Shanmuganandan)

                                                                                                Vs

1. The National   Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office II,

PR No.811, Mavoor Road,

Kozhikkode

2. The Managing Director,

Malabar Regional Co-operative

Milk Producers’ Union Ltd.,

Perumkulam,

Kunnamangalam P.O.

Kozhikkode

3. President / Secretary

Mathoor Ksheerolpadaka

Sahakarana Sangam Kliptham No.P105 (D),

APCOS, Mathur Agraharam P.O.

Palakkad

4. National Insurance Company Ltd.,

D.O.IV, Bangalore No.16,

Kumarakripa Road,

Shivananda Circle

Bangalore – 560 001                                -                       Opposite parties

       (OPs 1 & 4 by Adv.P.K.Devadas

        OP 2 by Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan

        OP 3 by Adv. T. Shobana)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. In view of a major question of law regarding maintainability of this complaint pertaining to the competency of complainant herein to act as a complainant is called into question, only the relevant facts and evidence to adjudicate this issue alone are discussed.
2. Complainant is the nephew of one Gopalakrishnan. Said Gopalakrishnan was a member of OP3 Sangam. Gopalakrishnan had availed an insurance policy, ‘Ksheera Karshaka Suraksha Padhathi’ floated jointly by OPs 1, 2 & 4. Complainant was the nominee of Gopalakrishnan in the said policy in the event of death of said Gopalakrishnan. Gopalakrishnan met with an accident on 23/9/2016 and died on 24/9/2016. But the opposite parties have failed to hand over the benefit of insurance policy to the complainant. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. One of the contentions raised by the first opposite party was that the complainant, being a nominee, and not a legal heir of the deceased was not competent to file this complaint.
4. This pleading, raised by the first opposite party, being of statutory importance touching the crux and maintainability of the complainant, is being considered as a preliminary issue in total exclusion of all other issues touching on merits.
5. Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act applicable at the time of filing of complaint) defines the term ‘complainant’(as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case herein) as follows:

“2(b)(v): Complainant means – in the case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative.”

6. Indubitably, being the insured, Gopalakrishnan is the consumer. He died. In the event of his death, his legal heirs or representative can file a complaint.

Complainant’s case is that he is the nominee of the deceased
Gopalakrishnan. Complaint is filed by the complainant in his capacity as the nominee of deceased Gopalakrishnan.  He claims to have received an N.O.C. from one of the legal heirs, which is not filed (not that it would make any difference to his status).  A nominee is a person who is entitled only to receive the amounts due to the legal heirs and hand over/transfer the said amounts to the legal heirs in accordance with the succession law applicable.

7.   On going through Exts.A11 and 12 communications sent by the complainant to O.P.2 and  O.P.4 respectively, it is clear that the legal heirs of the deceased are (1) Sri.K.N.Subramania Iyer (Father); (2) Ms. Meena Vaidyanathan (Sister);(3) Sri. S. Narayana Swamy (Brother); and (4) Sri. S. Venkateswara Iyer (Brother). These legal heirs have not filed any complaint.
8.    The next question is whether the complainant can be considered as the ‘Representative’ of the deceased.

Venkataramaiya’s law Lexicon (2^nd Edn.) defines ‘Representative of a deceased’ as follows:

“The word means and includes all or any of the persons for whose benefit a suit can be maintained. These persons are the representatives of the deceased, in the sense that they are the persons taking the place of the deceased.” (Johnson V/s Madras Railway Company, ILR 28 Mad.479 at p.484)

This definition makes it abundantly clear that the word ‘representative’ is to be taken as someone who would benefit from the proceeds of the insurance. He also should be able to take the place of the deceased.  In the facts and circumstances of the case herein, the beneficiaries would be the four legal heirs of deceased stated supra. The complainant is not a beneficiary as he is only a nominee.

9.    The complainant has stated in Ext.A12 communication to O.P.4 that the official gazette of Govt. of Kerala shows only the father of the deceased as the legal heir. This complaint is filed by the complainant on the strength of an N.O.C. allegedly executed by father of deceased in his favour.

We cannot subscribe to the contention of the complainant that in view of the contents in the gazette father alone can be the legal heir and that an N.O.C. issued in his favour would entitle the complainant to file this complaint. Complainant has not produced the gazette or the N.O.C.

10.  Even considering that the legal heirs have issued an N.O.C in favour of a nominee, a nominee will not fit in the shoes of a legal heir of a representative of the deceased as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
11. In view of the position stated above we hold that the complainant is not competent to file the aforesaid complaint. He is not a complainant as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. In view of the findings stated supra, we need not proceed with any further discussion on the merits or evidence of the case. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 12^th day of May, 2023.    

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                             Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

         Sd/-                                                       Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext. A1 –   Copy of circular bearing No.416/2015 dated 17/9/15

Ext. A2 –   Copy of application forms for ‘Ksheera Karshaka Personal Accident Suraksha

                   Padhathi’.

Ext. A3 –   Copy of FIR bearing No.0714

Ext. A4 –   Copy of  post-mortem certificate dated 24/9/16

Ext. A5 –   Copy of Indecipherable communication dated 25/9/2016

Ext. A6 –   Copy of  communication dated 28/9/16

Ext. A7 –   Copy of  death certificate bearing key no.D0060859-1609272

Ext. A8 –   Copy of communication dated 19/10/2016    

Ext. A9 –   Copy of  Personal Accident Claim Form

Ext. A10 – Copy of communication dated 23/2/2017

Ext. A11 – Copy of communication dated 2/7/2017

Ext. A12 – Copy of  communication  dated 25/8/2017

Ext.A13 – Copy of communication dated 28/8/2017

Ext.A14 – Copy of complainant’s aadhar card

Ext.A15 – Certified copy of relationship certificate dated 19/9/22

Ext.A16 – Same as Ext.A3

Ext.A17 – Copy of site mahazar

Ext.A18 – Copy of statements made by witnesses in CC/966/2016 in the JFMC-1 Palakkad

Ext.A19 – Copy of final report in  Crime No.362/2016

Ext.A20 – Copy of Judgment dated 6/8/2019  in CC 966/2016

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Ext.B1 – Certified true copy of policy bearing No.603900421510000182

Ext.B2 – Copy of revised order bearing No.MRU:P&I:310:KKSP:2015 

Ext.B3 – Copy of claim repudiation form dated 6/3/2017

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1- Ramani N.S.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: 

DW1 – Abhilash S, witness for OP1.

DW2 – Njanaprabha witness for OP3.

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.