Date of filing : 20-06-2008 Date of order: 16-10-2009 N THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 94/08 Dated this, the 16th day of October 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER 1. Ambady, S/o. Ambady Swamy, 2. Lakshmi, D/o. Ambady 3. Vishala, D/o. Ambady All are R/at Kumari House, } Complainants Rama Guru Nagar, Beach Road, Po. Bekal. 671 121 (Adv, Rajesh.Kasaragod) 1. The Commissioner, Matsya Board, Trissur, Po. Trissur. (In person) } Opposite parties 2. The Director of Insurance, Kerala State Insurance Department, Thiruvananthapuram. (Exparte) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complainants are the hapless dependents of the deceased Valsalan who was a member of Fisheries office Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board, Ajanur, Kasaragod. Valsalan died in a train mishap on 5-4-06. He was insured under Janata Personal Accident Policy issued by opposite party No.2. Since his death comes within the purview of Janata Person Accidental benefits the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased fisherman. Though claim was preferred before opposite party No.1 they neither accepted nor repudiated the claim. Hence the complaint. 2. Opposite party No.1 the Commissioner Matsya Board filed version. According to them the claim papers received with necessary documents were forwarded to Kerala State Insurance Department, on 23-04-07 after conducting necessary enquiries with recommendation to honour the claim. The Kerala State Insurance Department has to settle the claim and they were reminded in various sittings for the settlement of pending claims. They are ready to disburse the compensation to the dependents of the deceased Valsalan once it is passed by opposite party No.2. 3. In this case initially Kerala State Insurance Department was not a party. Subsequently Opposite Party No.2 was impleaded and notice was issued to them by registered post. As per the acknowledgement card returned it is seen served on the Director of Insurance on 6-5-2009. But as in the case of pending claims their lethargic approach continued and hence they did not care to appear before the Forum to submit their version. Hence opposite party No.2 was set exparte. 4. On behalf of the complainants the second complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 to A8 marked. For opposite party No.1 the Commissioner, Matsya board filed affidavit and Ext. B1 the copy of Janata Personal Accident Policy is marked. Both sides heard. 5. According to opposite party No.1 they have submitted the claim papers pertaining to the insurance benefits preferred by the dependents with enquiry report and recommendation to KSID (Opposite party No.2) for settlement of the claim. Further they alerted opposite party No.2 in various sittings to settle the pending claims. 6. Kerala State Fishermen Welfare Fund Board is constituted U/s 7 of the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Act for the administration of the Fund and to ‘ Supervise and carryout the activities financed from the fund’ As per Ext.B1 the Group Insurance Policy it is seen that a sum of Rs.8166733/- is paid towards the first premium. As per Government Order No. G.O.(Rt) No.554/2005/F& PD dt.14-11-05 it is seen that a further sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs only) is allotted for the renewal of policy. Except payment of this considerable big amount towards the premium what are all the activities they carried out to settle the pending claims is quite veiled. If opposite party No.1 was genuinely interested in the ‘welfare’ of the fisherman for the purpose to which they constituted, it was their duty to take appropriate actions including legal proceedings against opposite party No.2 for the settlement of pending claims. But no such proceedings, not even a notice is seen issued to opposite party No.2 for the settlement of pending claims. Definitely opposite party No.1 is also liable for their ineffective supervision and activities for settlement of claims financed from the fund for which the Board is constituted. 7. There are no explanations forthcoming from opposite party No.2 who is bound by the Group Insurance Policy to settle the claims of the complainants. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a leading case titled as Lucknow Development Authority V. M.K. Gupta, reported in 1993 CTJ 929 (SC) (CP) has held “ Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but help in changing the outlook… One of the reasons for this appears to be development of law which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or semi government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them”. Similarly, in case titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, 2004 CTJ 605 (SC) (CP) it was explicitly held by Hon’ble Apex Court that “when the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State, the ultimate suffer is common man. It is the tax payers’ money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such un pardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.” The aforesaid law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court confers power on the FORA constituted under the CP Act 1986 to recover the cost from the erring officials who were responsible for delaying the payment of amount to complainants. Since a detailed enquiry is necessary to fix the personal liability of the erring officials and as it is much time consuming and fearing further protraction of the matter we reserves such an enquiry to the next occasion to find out the erring officials who are happened to be the head of the store houses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous considerations leaving the common man helpless and fatigue after running from post to pillar to get their grievances redressed. 9. We think this is a fit case to award punitive compensation against the torpid mode of service rendered by opposite parties is the matter in settlement of claim of the complainant. 10. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh V. Healing Touch Hospital & Others reported in 2000 III CPR I (SC), has held as follows. While quantifying damages, Consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 11. No doubt the complainants have established their charge against opposite parties unequivocally and it is high time for the opposite parties to make a qualitative change in their attitude with respect to the settlement of pending claims pertaining to the Group Insurance Policy issued by them to the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay interest for aforesaid amount @ 12% by way of punitive compensation from the date of death of the deceased fisherman i.e. 5-4-06 till date of payment. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation. Opposite parties 1 & 2 further directed to pay Rs.1500/- each towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Photocopy of FIR A2.Photocopy of Post-mortem certificfate. A3. Photocopy of Inquest report A4. Photocopy of death certificate A5. 20-8-08 copy of lawyer notice. A6. Postal receipt A7. Postal acknowledgement card. A8 photocopy of pass book of deceased Valsan. B1. Photocopy of policy. MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
