KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

              VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                     APPEAL NO.520/09

                                  JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                -- MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                         -- MEMBER                                                                            

Amban Chandran,

Arakkandy House,

Kudukki Motta,

P.O.Kanhirod, Kannur – 670 592                           --  APPELLANT

(Through P.A.Holder Mahesan,

Gokulam, Kolenchery,Kannur)

   (By Adv.P.U.Shailajan)

                  Vs.

1.       The Divisional Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office,

Kottarathil Buildings,Palayam,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.       The Claim Service Officer,                           --  RESPONDENTS

New India Assurance Company,

Sadhoo Building,

Near Municipal Bus Stand

Kannur.

             (By Adv.V.K.Anilkumar)

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6^th July 2009 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.No.140/04.  The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Limited in disbursing the benefits due to the complainant under the Pravasi Suraksha Kudumba Arogya Scheme.  During the pendency of the complaint in OP.140/04, the complainant filed an Interlocutory Application to get the original complaint amended for the purpose of enhancing the claim from Rs.55,000/- to Rs.3,05,000/-.  The Forum below allowed the said Interlocutory Application filed by the complainant for amendment of the original complaint.  The opposite parties had also filed additional  version based on the aforesaid amendment sought for.  The parties have also adduced evidence based on the said amendment.  But unfortunately, the Forum below failed to consider the relief sought for in the amended complaint.  It is true that there occurred failure on the part of the complainant to carry out the amendment in the original complaint.  It is to be noted that carrying out of amendment is only a technical formality.  So, the Forum below passed the impugned order without considering the additional relief sought for by the complainant by way of the amendment.  This is a fit case to be remanded to the Forum below to get an order on merits.

          2. Both the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties admitted the aforesaid facts involved in the case.  The learned counsel for the  opposite parties (respondents) sought for an opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter.  The appellant/complainant is   directed to carry out the amendment in the light of the amendment application filed by the complainant and allowed by the Forum below.  So, this Commission is pleased to remand the matter  to the Forum below to have an order on merits by considering  all the aspects to the case including the additional relief sought for in the petition for amendment.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the matter is remanded to the Forum below.  The impugned order dated 6^th  July 2009 passed by the Forum below in OP.140/04 is set aside for the purpose of passing a detailed order based on the additional relief sought.    The parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 29/7/2010.  They are also directed to suffer their respective costs.

M.V.VISWANATHAN   --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     -- MEMBER

   S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER                                                                           

s/L