BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 323/2002 Filed on 26.07.2002

Dated : 31.07.2009

Complainant:

A. Josy, C.J. Cottage, Thottavaram, Perumkadavila, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Radhakrishnan)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union (TRCMPU), Ksheera Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. Nalanchira P. Krishnankutty)

    

2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., St. Joseph Building, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

    

3. The Secretary, Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Thottavaram, Perumkadavila P.O, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. G. Bhuvaneswaran)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 07.02.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 06.06.2009, the Forum on 31.07.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant is the wife of deceased Christudasan Nadar, who was a milk producer and a member of 3^rd opposite party with membership No. 48. The complainant is also a milk producer and a member of 3^rd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is a Co-operative body of Primary Milk Producers Co-operative Societies and the 3^rd opposite party is one of the member societies which is affiliated with the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is a milk Producers Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act which is constituted for the welfare of milk producers in the locality. The 1^st opposite party had implemented an insurance scheme through the 2^nd opposite party as per Circular No. 168/TRU/P&/Insurance/AD/2000. In the said circular the 1^st opposite party declared to insure all milk producers who are the members of the societies coming under the working area of 3^rd opposite party in the event of their accidental death. The premium for the above insurance scheme is to be paid in total by the 1^st opposite party with the 2^nd opposite party and as per the said insurance scheme the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties assured to give Rs. 1,00,000/- as insurance coverage to the nominees of deceased milk producer. On 31.07.2000 the complainant's husband drowned while he was bathing in the river. As the nominee of the deceased complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But the 2^nd opposite party issued a cheque for only Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, out of the total insured amount of Rs. 25,000/-. On repeated enquiries none of the opposite parties have given any reply to the complainant as to the disbursement of insurance benefit of her deceased husband. As per the complainant, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties since they were not ready to redress the grievances of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

The opposite parties in this case filed their versions. The 1^st opposite party, the Managing Director, TRCMPU Ltd. stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. As per the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the TRCMPU has voluntarily taken insurance policy from the National Insurance Company for which the TRCMPU itself has paid premium. As per the scheme a single paise was not collected either from the primary co-operative society or from its farmers like the husband of the complainant. Nothing was paid by the husband of the complainant. On the basis of the premium paid by the TRCMPU, the insurance company had allotted Rs. 25,000/- to the beneficiary who is the complainant. This amount was received by the complainant. The 1^st opposite party submitted that the TRCMPU has not committed any defective or deficiency of service rendered to the husband of the complainant.

In the version the 2^nd opposite party, the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. stated that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant being the nominee of the deceased Sri. Christudasan Nadar was entitled to get Rs. 25,000/-. Therefore this opposite party had issued a cheque for Rs. 25,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant, to the insured, the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party had accepted the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. The 2^nd opposite party also submitted that there is no hiring of service for consideration between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party. It is the 1^st opposite party who has taken the policy by paying the premium and who is the insured under the policy. The 2^nd opposite party further submitted that they are not aware of the circular issued by the 1^st opposite party and that the same are not binding on them. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the assured amount of insurance benefit was Rs. 1,00,000/- is absolutely false. As per the 2^nd opposite party they had settled the claim of the complainant promptly and without any delay in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy.

The 3^rd opposite party, the Secretary, Milk Producers Co-operative Society, Thottavaram stated in the version that the insurance scheme was introduced by the 1^st opposite party for the benefit of milk producers. As per the directions and circulars issued from the 1^st opposite party the 3^rd opposite party has collected application from the members including the said Christudasan Nadar and forwarded for further action to the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party has received an application from the legal heirs of late Christudasan Nadar seeking insurance coverage from the above stated scheme. Immediately on receipt of the said application, the 3^rd opposite party has forwarded the same to the 1^st opposite party for further action. The 3^rd opposite party has never acted against the interest and welfare of the milk producers and in the case of deceased Christudasan Nadar also. There is no deficiency in service occurred from this opposite party against the complainant and hence no cause of action has arisen against the 3^rd opposite party.

In this case complainant and 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties filed affidavits. From the side of complainant 7 documents were produced. 1^st opposite party produced 5 documents and 2^nd opposite party produced 3 documents.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant in this case is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant in this case is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Point (i):- In this case the husband of the complainant was a member in the Thottavaram milk Producers Co-operative Society. This society is affiliated to the Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union which is the Central Societies of the Primary Co-operative Society. The Board of this Society/TRCMPU had resolved to introduce a scheme of insurance voluntarily to the farmers of the members societies. This scheme was known as Janatha Personal Accidental Insurance Policy. As per the scheme, the TRCMPU has voluntarily taken insurance policy from the National Insurance Company for which the TRCMPU itself has paid premium. As per the scheme a single paise was not collected either from the primary co-operative society or from its farmers like the husband of the complainant. This scheme was purely routed on gratuity basis for which the premium was given by the TRCMPU only. Nothing was paid by the husband of the complainant. There is no dispute regarding the above said facts of the case. In this case the main contention of the opposite parties are that the complainant is not a consumer. The husband of the complainant in this case had not paid any amount to the opposite parties for the insurance scheme. As per the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties the complainant in this case is not a consumer. But the 1^st opposite party paid the insurance premium to the 2^nd opposite party for and on behalf of the members of the Thottavaram Milk Producers Co-operative Society. The husband of the complainant was a member of that society and there is no dispute regarding the same. As per Sec. 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, “consumer” means any person who –

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];

   [Explanation: For the purpose of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

In this case the 1^st opposite party paid the insurance premium for and on behalf of the husband of the complainant, hence the husband of the complainant is a beneficiary of the 2^nd opposite party and therefore he would definitely come under the definition of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.

Points (ii) & (iii):- To prove the claim of the complainant she has produced 7 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of circular No. 84/2000-01 issued by the 1^st opposite party dated 23.02.2000. In the circular the 1^st opposite party declared the decision to insure all milk producers who are the members of Milk Producers Co-operative Society coming under the working area of 3^rd opposite party in the event of their accidental death and accidental disabilities. The premium for the above insurance scheme is to be paid in total by the 1^st opposite party with the 2^nd opposite party and as per the said insurance scheme the 2^nd opposite party will give Rs. 1 lakh as insurance coverage to the nominees of deceased milk producer. On the basis of this document the complainant claims Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties. This document is only a circular. As per this document, there is no contractual obligations between the opposite parties and the members of the society. This circular is issued by the 1^st opposite party among the members of the milk producers society. The 1^st opposite party paid the insurance premium for and on behalf of the milk producers. Hence there is no contractual obligation between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant and as per this circular the complainant has no right to claim Rs. 1 lakh from the opposite parties. The insurance of contract is between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party. As per Ext. D5 document produced by the 2^nd opposite party the sum insured per person is Rs. 25,000/-. Ext. P2 is the copy of application form for joining the insurance scheme. Ext. P3 is the copy of post mortem certificate. As per this document the cause of death of Christudasan Nadar was drowning. Ext. P4 is the copy of letter submitted by the complainant before 3^rd opposite party dated 15.04.2002 for requesting the insurance benefit. Ext. P5 is the copy of cheque dated 28.11.2001 in the name of the complainant issued by the 1^st opposite party for Rs. 25,000/-. Ext. P6 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 06.07.2002 demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- as insurance amount. This letter was issued after receiving the amount from the opposite parties as full and final settlement. Ext. P7 is the postal receipts of notice. To contend this claim the 1^st opposite party has produced 4 documents. The document marked as Ext. D1 is the copy of the letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party. In this letter it is stated that the 2^nd opposite party sending the cheque for Rs. 25,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim. Ext. D2 is the copy of cheque dated 28.11.2001 for Rs. 25,000/- issued by the 2^nd opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ext. D3 is the discharge voucher signed by the complainant. As per this document the complainant received the amount from the 1^st opposite party towards the settlement of claim of group insurance covered under the Insurance Scheme of National Insurance Company as per the allotment of claim amount from the company dated 29.11.2001. Ext. D4 is the copy of letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party National Insurance Company has produced 3 documents. The document marked as Ext. D5 is the copy of Janatha Personal Accident Group Policy. As per this document the sum insured is Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to get only this amount as per the benefit of this policy. Ext. D6 is the copy of cheque in the name of the complainant for Rs. 25,000/- dated 28.11.2001. Ext. D7 is the voucher issued by the 2^nd opposite party and signed by the 1^st opposite party stating that the insurance amount Rs. 25,000/- was received in full and final settlement of the claim of policy No. 570203/47/9600089/2000. In this case the contract of insurance is between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the insurance amount of Rs. 25,000/- issued by the 2^nd opposite party on the basis of the premium paid by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has no objection on this amount. As per Ext. D5 document the 1^st opposite party has taken the Group Insurance Policy for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per head and for that amount the 1^st opposite party paid the premium. Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party issued the cheque to the complainant after processing the claim. Hence there is no deficient service from the side of 2^nd opposite party. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance between the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party, 2^nd opposite party issued cheque for Rs. 25,000/-. The 1^st opposite party accepted the same for and on behalf of the complainant in full and final settlement. Therefore the complainant has no ground to file complaint against the opposite parties before this Forum. The complainant filed this complaint on the basis of the circular issued by the 1^st opposite party. But the 1^st opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant towards insurance premium. Hence there is no consumer relationship between the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties and the complainant. Hence the complainant has no right to claim any amount from the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties. From the above mentioned discussions we are of the view that there is no cause of action for filing this complaint before this Forum. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 323/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of circular dated 23.2.2000 from the M.D, TRCMPU.

P2 - Application form for Personal Accident Insurance Scheme

P3 - Photocopy of Post-mortem certificate issued by Medical

Officer, Taluk Hospital, Neyyattinkara dated 01.08.2006

P4 - Copy of letter dated 15.04.2002 issued by the complainant

to 3^rd opposite party.

P5 - Copy of cheque dated 28.11.2001 for Rs. 25000/- of

Central Bank of India.

P6 - Copy of advocate notice dated 06.07.2002 issued to

opposite party.

P7 - Under Certificate of Posting receipt dated 06.07.2002.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of letter issued by the National Insurance Co. dated 23.11.2001 to the 1^st opposite party.

D2 - Copy of cheque dated 22.11.2001 for Rs. 25000/- of Syndicate Bank, Tvpm.

D3 - Copy of receipt dated 29.11.2001.

D4 - Copy of letter dated 07.05.2001 issued by Insurance Co. to the opposite party.

D5 - Janatha Personal Accident Group Policy dated 29.05.2001.

D6 - Copy of Cheque dated 28.11.2001 for Rs. 25,000/- of Central Bank of India, Tvpm.

D7 - Receipt of Rs. 25,000/-.

PRESIDENT