KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 119/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 11.12.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 12/2015 of CDRF, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Kulanada Grama Panchayath, represented by Secretary, Kulanada Grama Panchayath, Kulanada-689 503, Pathanamthitta.

                   (By Advs. V. Sathish Kumar & Narayan R)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Prasanna B, Thadathil Padinjattethil House, Manthuka P.O, Kulanada-689 503, Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. Sreeja Sasidharan)

2. Kerala State Govt. Represented by Principal Secretary, Kerala State Labour Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

3. United India Insurance Company represented by Branch Manager, Pathanamthitta-689 645.

                             (By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar for 3^rd respdt.)

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER        

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/2^ndopposite party challenging the order dated 29.04.2016 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 12/2015. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a member of “Rashtriya Swastha Bhima Yojana” named as “Chiyak”.  The Govt. of Kerala is conducting this insurance scheme with the help of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  At the time of introduction of the said Chiyak Scheme, the mother-in-law of the complainant Smt. Kuttathi was the head of the family and Ravi, the son of Kuttathi, his wife Prasanna (complainant), children Renju and Rahul are included in the said scheme.  The above said Kuttathi died on 29.07.2010 and subsequently the complainant’s husband, son of the deceased Kuttathi, Ravi became the head of the house.  It is stated that when the said Kuttathi died, the complainant and her family members had gone to 2^nd opposite party’s office for renewal of the said scheme and for affixing new photo of the family head, the 2^nd opposite party allowed the complainant to affix her photo in the place of the deceased Kuttathi’s photo and told them that as per the scheme the family head should be a woman. Hence, the complainant’s photo was affixed in the said Kuttathi’s place of photograph.  According to the complainant, on 03.06.2012 the husband of the complainant Ravi died as a result of a fall from a tree.  In order to get the insurance claim, the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party’s office and filed claim statement.  Even though, the complainant filed a claim petition along with document to 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party has neither accepted the claim nor rejected the claim.  The complainant further stated that as a result of the death of her husband Ravi, she became the family head of the family and hence she is eligible for the insurance benefit as claimed earlier.  It is further stated that the mistake committed by the officials of the 2^nd opposite party by affixing the photo of the complainant would not in any way affect her claim.  It is contended that as per the insurance scheme, the complainant is eligible to get Rs. 2 lakhs from 3^rd opposite party from 09.07.2012 onwards with 9% interest.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 

3.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were set ex-parte.  The 3^rd opposite party filed written version.  In the version 3^rd opposite party has admitted that they issued a health card under RSBY through Akshaya Kendra of Kulanada Grama Panchayat.  According to them as per the scheme the ration card of the party is considered as the basic evidence and the head of the family should be decided as per the said ration card.  The 3^rd opposite party admitted that the complainant submitted a claim and the same had been repudiated on the ground of non-inclusion of complainant’s name in the ration card.  The 3^rd opposite party insurance company argued that there was no deficiency in service from their side, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

4.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant/1^st respondent the District Forum found that it is the 2^nd opposite party who is responsible for the issue of the health card and its renewal.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and informed the death of her mother-in-law and requested for renewal of the health card.  At that time the 2^nd opposite party’s officials directed the complainant to affix her photograph as the head of the family.  Ext. A5 shows that the photograph affixed is that of the complainant and name and age is that of her mother-in-law, ‘Kuttathi, aged 75 years’.  On the basis of Ext. A5, the District Forum found that the act of the 2^nd opposite party amounts to negligence, irresponsibility and dereliction of duty.  Only due to the act of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant has suffered too much mental agony and financial loss.  Hence the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the 2^nd opposite party to correct the health card of the complainant within 30 days of the order and the complainant is also directed to file a proper application before the 2^nd opposite party within 15 days of the receipt of the order, otherwise the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and also directed to take disciplinary action against the 2^nd opposite party. 

5.  Against this order the 2^nd opposite party has preferred this appeal.  In this appeal the 1^st and 2^nd respondents appeared.  Adv. Narayan appears for the appellant and he vehemently argued for the appellant.  Adv. Sreeja Sasidharan has objected for allowing the appeal and setting aside the ex-parte order against the appellant.

6.  We heard both sides and perused the entire records.  In this case the 2^nd opposite party Kulanada Grama Panchayat had accepted the notice from the District Forum, but they didn’t appear.  The reason stated for their non-appearance is that the notice was misplaced in the office of the appellant and by the time the opposite party entered appearance, the complaint was already disposed of by the District Forum.  The reason put forward by the appellant is not reasonable.  As a Govt. Office the appellant has some responsibility to the public.  It is their duty to keep the records properly and take immediate action for the welfare of the people.  They had sufficient time to contest the case before the District Forum.  In this belated stage remand of the case for fresh disposal would seriously prejudice the complainant/1^st respondent, a widow.  Hence the order of the District Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

The appellant shall comply with the order of the District Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  After compliance of the order, the appellant has the right to withdraw the amount deposited before this Commission and the District Forum. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                   T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                                   BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                         K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN  : MEMBER

jb