KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 681/05 JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT The manager National Insurance Co.Ltd., Kollam District. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.Saji Isaac.K.J) Vs. 1. Rajeevan, Kinattummoodu, Alappaattuthura, Alappad, Kollam District. (By K.P.Jabbar & Associate) 2. The Secretary, -- RESPONDENTS Alappad Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society, Cheriyazhiekkal (PO) Karunagappally. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party/National Insurance Company Ltd. in OP.159/2003 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellant is under orders to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- with 9% interest and Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is a Member of Alappad Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society and he was insured with the first opposite party and has been paying the premium regularly. On 30.1.01 while engaged in fishing, he sustained serious injury to his right hand and the same has become totally defunct. The claim was repudiated. 3. The first opposite party/appellant has contended that the second opposite party ie; Secretary, Alappad Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society has not made any request to settle the claim and that no policy details was furnished. It is also contended that the appellant could not trace out the policy in favour of the second opposite party, wherein the name of the complainant is allegedly mentioned. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.P1 to P9. 5. I find that the relevant records from the Project Officer, Matsyafed, Kollam were summoned. He has produced the particulars with respect to the names of the insured wherein the name of the complainant is mentioned as serial Item No.255. The copy of the master policy issued has been produced by the appellant along with the appeal memorandum. Ext.B1 certificate issued by Fishermen Welfare Co-operative Society certifies that the complainant has been paying the premium regularly to the office of the second opposite party. I find that the appellant also would be having the relevant records. The appellant has not produced any documents that would show that the name of the complainant is not included in the policy schedule that contain the list of persons insured. In the circumstance, I find that the contention of the appellant that the complainant is not covered under the policy cannot be sustained. 6. The complainant has produced the records and the same considered order by the Forum. There is no illegality in the order of the Forum in this regard. There is no contention in the appeal memorandum with respect to the amount of compensation ordered. In the circumstances, we find that there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum. The order of the Forum is sustained. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay the amount to the complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled with interest at 12% from the date of this order. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT S/L | 
