Smt. Vanka Kalamma, W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Koremvarigumpu, H/o. Thummalacheruvu Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam Dist - 507116 - Complainant(s)
Versus
The District Collector, Khammam District - 507 002 & another - Opp.Party(s)
Smt. Vanka Kalamma, inperson
30 Sep 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM Varadaiah Nagar, Opp CSI Church consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/88
Smt. Vanka Kalamma, W/o. Late Suryanarayana, R/o. Koremvarigumpu, H/o. Thummalacheruvu Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam Dist - 507116
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The District Collector, Khammam District - 507 002 & another The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co., Ltd., Secunderabad - 500 003
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 30th day of September, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., L.L.B. - President, 2. Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha B.Sc. B.L. - Member 3. Sri R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc. L.L.B - Member C.C.No.88/2009 Between: Smt.Vanka Kalamma, w/o.late Suryanarayana, Koremvarigumpu, H/o.Thummalaheruvu village, Aswapuram-507 116, Khammam District. Complainant and 1. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam -507 001, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd., Zonal office, D.No.1-8-167 to 179-3, Beside Usha Kiran complex, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad- 500 003. Opposite parties This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing, the complainant appeared in person; notice of opposite party No.1 served; Notice of opposite party No.2 returned unserved; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments of complainant and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:- O R D E R (Per Sri Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the husband of the complainant, Sri.Vanka Suryanarayana was killed by extremists on 4-7-2007 at about 10-30 P.M. at Koremvarigumpu, H/o.Thummalacheruvu village of Aswapuram Mandal of Khammam District. After the death of her husband, she submitted application along with all enclosures to opposite party No.1 for sanction and disbursement of the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- under Apathbhandhu scheme. She approached the opposite party No.1 about her application, it was informed that her application was under consideration. With the hope of getting positive action, the complainant did not recourse to legal action. Opposite party No.1 failed to give any reasons for abnormal delay and failed to communicate why the application of the complainant could not be considered. Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite party No.1 on 8-6-2009, but there was no response by the opposite party No.1. Hence, this complaint. She further submits that the Government of A.P. entered into an agreement with the opposite party No.2 for providing group insurance for below poverty line families under Apthbhandhu scheme vide G.O.Ms.No.1429, Revenue (Disaster Management-I), Dept. dt.28-9-2006 for payment of Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death of below poverty line families, deaths resulting from breakdown of law and order. Under this scheme, opposite party No.1 has to accord sanction and make payment to the families of victims from revolving fund released by the Government and subsequently get it reimbursed from the Insurance Company, opposite party No.2. In support of her contention, she filed the following documents. Ex.A.1 - Go.M.S.No.1429 Revenue (Disaster Management-I), Dept, dt.28-9-2006, Ex.A.2 - Representation submitted to the opposite parties. Ex.A.3 - Copy of Letter Rc.No.C/2187/2007, dt.14-8-2007 of Tahasildar, Aswapuram. Having registered the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, but there was no contest from their side. On one occasion i.e. on 27-11-2009 on behalf of the opposite party No.1, the office superintendent has submitted an application stating that the matter is under examination and pray time. Accordingly, the case is adjourned and time is granted for filing the counter. Again on 22-2-2010 another application is filed, seeking time for filing counter and the same was allowed and time granted for filing counter. Inspite of availing a number of adjournments, no counter is filed and there was no representation from the opposite party No.1 side. Opposite party No.2 is a proforma party. On behalf of the complainant, written arguments filed. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim amount under Apathbhandhu scheme? 2. To what relief? Point No.1 The complainant refers to the Abstract of Government of A.P. in G.O.Ms.No.1429, dt.28-9-2006, wherein the Government after careful examining the matter has decided to grant the Apathbhandhu scheme by paying a premium of Rs.10.00 crores to the opposite party No.2, Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd., Secunderayad for minimum coverage of 3200 death cases at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per case. The Government would initially be paying the premium of Rs.10.00 crores for 3,200 cases and once the target is nearing completion, on the basis of the number of cases expected, additional premium will be paid on pro-rate basis. She also refers to a copy of letter dated 14-8-2007 issued by Tahasildar recommending for sanction of exgratia of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. She also refers to her written representation made to the opposite party No.1 according to the memorandum of understanding, opposite party No.2 has to settle a minimum of 3200 cases and there is no maximum ceiling on number of cases. The District Collector is under contractual obligation to discharge his duties in accordance with the terms of agreement with insurance company and the District Collector has no discretionary power in this regard to accord sanction according to his will and wishes. This is not a gratuitous payment to exercise discretion, but it is a contractual obligation created by the contract of insurance. This is a welfare scheme of Government of A.P. which envisages grant of ex-gratia payment of up to Rs.50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased. The complainant having approached the District Collector i.e. the opposite party No.1 but not getting any satisfactory reply, she knocked the doors of this Forum. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach. The court is likely to take a liberal view of the word services. The judicial authorities are bound to communicate their decision to the necessary parties. It is the legal duty on the part of the District Collector to communicate his decision to the complainant. But in this case the opposite party No.1, District Collector grossly failed to communicate his decision even after lapse of two years. The non- communication of the decision within the reasonable time is clearly a case of deficiency of service. The District Collector, opposite party No.1 has to discharge his duties as contemplated in the memoranda of understanding, due to this abnormal delay, the complainant had to forgo her legal right of remedy conferred by Law. The quasi judiciary is a duty bound to record reasons for its decision and communicate the same to the affected person. The servants of the Government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service, no law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. The provisions of Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment, as it is social benefit oriented legislation. The public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behavior before authorities created under the statute book like the commission or the courts. As per section 14 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party, which is a social welfare legislation. The Forum under the Act is to protect the interest of the consumer and can grant relief on the basis of the facts in the complaint considering the overall circumstances of the case. This is a welfare scheme of Government of A.P. which envisages grant of ex-gratia payment of up to Rs.50,000/- to the heirs of the deceased in case of death in the extremists activities. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment, as it is social benefit oriented legislation. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards Apathbhandhu Accidental Insurance scheme together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of death of husband of the complainant i.e. 4-7-2007 till the date of deposit and also Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service by opposite party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. There is no relief against the opposite party No.2 since it is only a formal party. In the result, the complaint is allowed, complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards Apathbhandhu Accidental Insurance scheme together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of death of husband of the complainant i.e. 4-7-2007 till the date of deposit and also Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service by opposite party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. There is no relief against the opposite party No.2 since it is only a formal party. Dictated to the Jr.steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 30th day of September, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: None Witnesses examined for opposite parties : None Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Go.M.S.No.1429 Revenue (Disaster Management-I), Dept, dt.28-9-2006, Ex.A.2 - Representation submitted to the opposite parties. Ex.A.3 - Copy of Letter Rc.No.C/2187/2007, dt.14-8-2007 of Tahasildar, Aswapuram. Exhibits marked for opposite parties: -Nil- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
