Date of filing  :  02-01-2010 

                                                                            Date of order  :  11-02-2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC. 1/2010

                         Dated this, the  11^th    day of    February    2011

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                        : MEMBER

1. Mulla, D/o.Sheela, Koipady Kadappuram,

    Po.Kumbala, Kasaragod.

2. Leela, W/o. Raghavan (late),

    R/at Kasaba Kadappuram, Po.Kasaragod.       } Complainants

3. Shibu, S/o.Late Ravindran,

    Kasaba Kadappuram, Po. Kasaragod.

4. Shiju, S/o.Late Ravindran,

    Kasaba Kadappuram, Po. Kasaragod.

(Adv.U.S.Balan, Kasaragod)

1. The Commissioner,                                                  } Opposite parties

     Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board,

     Trichur.

(In Person)

2. The Director of Insurance,

     Kerala State Insurance Department,

     Thiruvananthapuram.

(Addl. Govt. Pleader)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            Complainants filed this complaint claiming to be the legal representatives of deceased Ravindran who lost his life in the high seas on 15-10-2006 and his body is recovered on 16-10-2006.  He was a member of Kasaba Fisheries Village of Kasaragod District and he is issued with membership No.1732 and pass book No.P/02078 by opposite parties.  He was insured by opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.2 through Janata Personal Accident Policy and therefore his legal representatives are entitled for `1,00,000/- being the capital sum assured in the case of the death of a beneficiary under the JPA scheme.  Though complainants filed claim before the opposite parties they did not settle the claim.  Hence the complaint.

2.         Version of OP No.1

            According to opposite party No.1 the application submitted by the complainants with relevant documents were forwarded to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 is to settle the claim and since there is long pendency in settling claims by opposite party No.2, opposite party No.1 has conducted several meetings at higher level.  As a result several claims were settled by them and even now number of claim are pending before them.

3.         Version of OP No.2.

            The complainants have not submitted any petition or document and membership pass before opposite parties.  If there is a claim then the same will be examined by opposite parties  immediately on getting necessary documents. There is no delay or laxity in the part of opposite party No.2 in settling the claim and the complainants are not entitled for any compensation.

4.         Complainant No.1 filed affidavit.  Exts A1 to A5 marked.  On behalf of opposite party No.2 Sri. S.K. Venugopalan Nair the District Insurance Officer, Kasaragod filed affidavit reiterating what is stated in the version.  Ext.B1 copy of the Group Personal Accident Policy is marked.

5.         Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR of Kumbala Police Station pertaining to the death of deceased Ravindran. The FIR is lodged by one K.Rajan who is the son of deceased Ravindran’s mothers younger sister.  In the FIR it is stated that the wife of deceased is divorced and she remarried  another and  Shibu and Shyju (The 3^rd and 4^th complainants) are the sons of deceased.  Ext.A2 is the copy of the Post Mortem Certificate and Ext.A3 is the Death Certificate of the deceased Ravindran. Ext.A4 is the copy of the Inquest Mahazer and Ext. A5 is the pass book issued by opposite party No.1.

6.         Now the issues to be settled in this complaint are:

1)     Whether the complainants are the legal representatives of deceased Ravindran

and if so whether they are entitled for the death claim benefits of the deceased?

2)     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3)     If  so what order as to relief and costs?

7.         Point No.1:  

            The learned counsel for complainants  submitted that Ist complainant is the wife of the deceased Ravindran and second complainant is his mother and 3^rd & 4^th complainants are the son of the deceased Ravindran.  It is pertinent to note that in the original complaint the sons of the deceased were not made as parties and subsequently during enquiry when it is found that they are also necessary parties, they were impleaded as supplemental complainants 3& 4. With respect to the claim of 1^st complainant learned counsel for the complainant submitted that though the 1^st complainant is re-married, she was not legally divorced by the deceased and hence she is entitled for the  death compensation of her former husband.  But we are unable to accept this contention. Since we are quite unaware about the  status of divorce,  whether it was legal or not legal and therefore we hold that 1^st complainant being re-married to another is not entitled for any compensation since she ceases to be a legal representative of the deceased.  Only complainant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for the death claim benefits of the deceased.

8.         Point No.2 :

            Opposite party No.1 in their version has submitted that they had forwarded the application submitted by the applicants along with relevant documents to opposite party No.2 and there are long pendency in settling the claim by opposite party No.2 eventhough some of them are settled after high level meetings including meeting convened by Fisheries Minister.

9.         We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of opposite party No.1.  Therefore it is clear that they have forwarded the claim to opposite party No.2 and the delay for the non-disbursement is occurred  due to the deficient service of opposite party No.2.

10.      Point No.3. Relief & Costs

            As per Ext.B1, Group Personal Accident Policy issued by opposite party No.2 to Opposite party No.1  in case of death of a beneficiary his/her legal representatives are entitled for `1,00,000/- as the capital sum assured.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay `1,00,000/-with interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment with a cost of `3000/-.  Complainants 2 to 4 are only entitled for the said amount.  Complainant No.1 is not entitled for the benefits since she is no more a legal representative of the deceased Ravindran. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite party No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% for `1,00,000/- from the date of complaint till payment.

   Sd/-                                                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. Copy of FIR deceased Ravindran.

A2. Photocopy of Post-mortem Certificate of deceased Ravindran.

A3. Photocopy of Death certificate of deceased Ravindran.

A4. Photocopy of Inquest  Mahazar.

A5. Pass book of deceased Ravindran. No. P. 02078.

B1. Copy of Group Personal Accident Policy.

     Sd/-                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT

Pj/

                                                                                    Forwarded by Order

                                                                          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT