KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.130/09 JUDGMENT DATED: 7.8.09 Appeal filed agains the order passed by CDRF. Thiruvananthapuram in CC 234/07 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Smt.Santhakumari, : APPELLANT Manager, Popular Charitable Society, Near Panchayath Office, Kanchiyoorkonam Road, Kattakkada, Thiruvananthpauram. (By Adv.S.Williams) Vs. Smt.E.G.Kunjulekshmi Amma, : RESPONDENT “Uthradam”, T.C.4/13(1), Ambalamukku, Kowdiar.P.o., Thiruvananthpauram. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in the file of CC.No.234/07 dated 30.12.2008. The appellant is the 1st opposite party who prefers this appeal from the order passed by the Forum below. In short the complainant is a senior citizen and a retired school teacher. As per the request the 1st opposite party recruited the 2nd opposite party as a house maid of the complainant on 26.2.07. For that purpose the complainant had paid Rs.2500/- as salary advance, paid Rs.500/- as registration fee and paid Rs.100 as traveling expenses to the 1st opposite party. As per the terms and conditions the monthly salary will be paid in advance for every month. If the service ended in any period the advance amount will be repaid. On 27.7.07 the 2nd opposite party went home with the assurance that she will return on 29.7.07 and the complainant paid Rs.2500/- as salary advance for the next month. But thereafter she did not return, the complainant several times enquired the matter to the 1st opposite party . Then the 1st opposite party assured that she will sent another house maid to the complainant soon. But the 1st opposite party did not do so or refund the salary advance amount to the complainant. Hence the complaint filed for the redressal of her grievance. After received notice from the Forum below opposite parties called absent and set exparte. 2.Forum below raised 2 points they are: Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties? And Reliefs and costs? 3. The Forum below given opportunities to the complainant to adduce their evidence. The complainant examined as PW1 and marked documents. Ext.P1 copy of cash receipt No.493 dtd. 18.6.07 and P1(a) photocopy of visiting card of opposite party. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service in the part of opposite parties and therefore allowed the complaint. The Forum below ordered the 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1900/- to the complainant from this salary advance paid by the complainant and shall also pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% interest shall be paid to the above mentioned amount till the date of realization. The 1st opposite party preferred this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. The counsel for the appellant is present and the respondent/ complainant is present party in person. Heard both sides, the counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum, the appellant herein is a member of the popular charitable society, a purely charitable institution which is engaged in the supply of candidates for the job of security, maternity care, salesmen/salesgirls, cleaning staff, drivers house maids for looking after aged and invalid person. The unemployed members of the society given training for working as house maids and also for taking care of the invalid person in houses which require the service of such people on monthly payment basis. The counsel submitted that the Forum below went wrong in its finding that there is a deficiency of service of the charitable society without any proven legally, the compensation and cost awarded are not sustainable in the eye of law. The old lady respondent/complainant submitted that she is a retired school teacher and hardly need of the service of a maid servant for her day to day help, she approached the opposite party and they provided a non suitable maid servant for her. This on this day the appeal came before for final hearing this Commission heard both sides and perused the documents and seeing that the complainant had paid Rs.2500/- as salary advance on 18.6.07. Again the complainant paid Rs.2500/- on 27.7.07. But she availed service from the opposite parties only on one month and 7 days hence the complainant is entitled to get back 23 days salary from the opposite party which was paid by her in advance. In this case the complainant was paid him for three months for the service of the opposite parties but they did not sent another house maid to the complainant. According to the complainant the act of the appellant is nothing but a deficiency in service which caused so much hurdles to the aged lady/ complainant. At present there is a problem of the social security among the aged people. Appellant is running the institution for providing service to this people. May be it is a charitable service but in this case the appellant who provided service after accepting money from the complainant. From the part of the appellant it is unhealthy and unfair trade practice. The chartable society is normally providing their service to the public on free of cost. But the appellant collected money on for their offered service. It is not coming within the purview of the Charitable Societies Act. The appellant is coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is according to the law and evidence and legally sustainable. In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed by the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. It is highly necessary to prevent this type of anti social activities. It is nothing but a violation of “The security of parents and old age people’s Act. The Registrar of this Commission is direct to forward the copy of the judgment to the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Kerala to provide necessary protection to the old age people from this type of unscrupulous institutions. It is highly necessary for the interest of consumer justice. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF. Kasargod in the file of CC.No203/07 dated 18th November 2008. The appellant is the opposite party. In short the complainant is a agriculturists. He had taken a livestock cattle insurance policy from the opposite party for a cow. Unfortunately the cow died on 2.4.07 and after the death of the cow ear tag had lost. For this reason opposite party had repudiated the claim. The complainant assured that the cow tag No. is 10499 and the cow was just reported on have been dead cow the tag No.10499. The veterinary doctor has given death certificate to the effect that cow which would died of the same tag No.16499 as the same doctor had come to check up the cow on several times. Pachayat President, Ward member and other neighbouts have certified that died cow is one and same as the cow’s tag No. is 16499. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim as this complaint. The opposite party had taken before the Forum below and file their version. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable and denies all the allegations and averments in the petition. The opposite party admitted having ….policy No.441003/47/2007/8 to complainant insuring his cow for the period from 3.5.06 to 2.5.07. Opposite party also admits that the complainant had lodged the claim for Rs.10000/- with opposite party stating that the insured cow died on 26.4.07. But the complainant did n ot produce ear tag of the cow. As per the condition No.4 of the policy issued to the complainant the insurer is not liable for any claim if the insured animal is found without ear tag. The opposite party had repudiated the claim that for the policy conditions “No tag No claim as mentioned in the policy schedule. Hecne the opposite party is to dismiss the petition with cost. For the complainant PW1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were marked no oral evidence adduced by the opposite party and Ext.B1 was marked on opposite party side. The Forum below allowed the petition and directed the opposite party and insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.10000/- the claim amount to the complainant and a cost of Rs.250/-. The appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the Forum below. On this day the appeal came up before this Commission, the counsel for appellant and respondent are present. The counsel for the appellant argued on grounds of appeal memorandum that there is no tag available ot the appellant for the identification of the deceased cow. The submission from the counsel for the appellant is that according to the policy conditions insurer have no right to came any insurance in the actions of a tag because insured cow. Counsel invited an attention of this Commission that there is a clause in the policy conditions(Ext.B1) “No tag No claim”. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the tag was lose But the very same cow died. There is no dispute regarding the death of the cosw raised by the appellant/opposite parties both before the forum or before theis Commisison. The counsel for the appellant strictly argued that a tag ios a must for the settlement of the claim. Otherwise the company is not liable to pay any compensation to the insurer. The death of the cow was admitted by the appellant which has within the policy period. The appellant/opposite party have not taken any steps to investigator that the died insured cow or any other cow. They have no such case the insurance company is taking a hyper technicality. As per the evidence adduced by the complainant seen that veterinary doctor had issued certificate because he was sure that the cow which was died, or the same cow which the complainant had taken livestock policy with the opposite party. The Panchayat President and the Ward member and other neighbours also given the statement that it is the very same cow, which was insured with the opposite party, which had died. The postmortum report mentioned Ext.A7. In Ext.A7 the ear tag number written as 16499 but it shows tag was lost. A cow is a animal not considerable to keep in the safe custody within the house like a cat or small . It is a large animal. It is wandering and eating grass nobody can strictly say that a cow is treated for keep tag in safe. They are the ample opportunity to lose it. The appellants Company is caught this tag to a earning of a women. This Commission is in a view taken by the Forum below is legally and socially correct and hence a order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable. We appreciate the consumer friendly attitude of the Forum below. The Consumer Forum established as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to ensure social justice to the consumers. No doubt that this is a very socially beneficial legislation. In the result this appeal is dismissed and order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Both parties are directed to suffer their own costs. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER ps
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
