2. The Superintendent of Police,

    Guntur.                                                     … Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      18-04-11 in the presence of Sri J.Ravi Babu, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Ch.Narasimha Reddy (Govt. Pleader), Advocate for opposite parties 1&2, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- along with monthly deposits with interest @ 18% p.a. and to award costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant is the wife of late Maddu Ratna Kumar, who worked as AR Constable bearing No.ARPC-2771 at Guntur.  During his service period, he joined in Bhadratha scheme introduced by his department, under which an amount of Rs.100/- was deducted from his salary every month.  Subsequently in the month April, 2008 he took another scheme of Bhadratha by paying further sum of Rs.100/- p.m.  Every month the amounts would get deducted from his salary.  As per terms and conditions of Bhadratha scheme, in case any member died, the 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- on payment of Rs.100/- p.m. and Rs.2,00,000/-, if the member paid Rs.200/- p.m. along with deposit amount.  The husband of complainant Maddu Ratna Kumar died on 09-06-08.  Thereafter the complainant approached opposite parties herein to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under two schemes along with subscription amount from the date of joining of scheme.  Then the opposite parties paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under first Bhadratha but they have not paid the second scheme amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The complainant approached the opposite parties for settlement of second scheme amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on several times.  But the opposite parties have been postponing the same on some pretext or the other from time to time.  So the complainant issued legal notice dt.04-12-09 to the 1^st opposite party and on 19-12-09 to 2^nd opposite party.  But the opposite parties did not choose the settle the claim, which amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The 1^st opposite party filed its version and the same is adopted by 2^nd opposite party, which is in brief as follows:

                The husband of complainant Maddu Ratna Kumar bearing No.APRC 2771 worked as AR Constable at Guntur.  During his service as AR constable an amount of Rs.50/- p.m. from February, 1997 to April, 1998 and Rs.100/- p.m. from May, 1998 to March, 2008 and Rs.200/- p.m. from April, 2008 to July, 2008 was deducted by Unit Officer.   A scheme was evolved in the year 1997 that an amount of Rs.50/- was collected from every member of Bhadratha which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/- p.m. in respect of personnel from the category of constable to ASI and Rs.200/- p.m. in respect of personnel from the category of SI and above and if any member died while in service, the legal representatives would be entitled for payment of ex-gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- upto the category of ASI and Rs.2,00,000/- for personnel from the category of SI and above.  Mere collection of Rs.200/- p.m. towards subscription for the months of April to May, 2008 from the late husband of complainant does not entitled the complainant to receive Rs.2,00,000/- towards ex-gratia.  Since the amount of ex-gratia paid is depended on two factors i.e., the position and rank of deceased person in the hierarchy of the police department and the amount of subscription collected from such employee. 

                The opposite party submitted that the allegation of complainant that she is entitled for payment of subscription amount contributed by her husband is also not maintainable since the Managing Committee of Bhadratha has resolved to dispense the payment of subscription amounts in its meeting held on 17-02-03, the legal representatives of the deceased employees but authorized the payment of exgratia amount only.  Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.    

4.             Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant is the wife of late Maddu Ratna Kumar worked as AR Constable No.2771 at Guntur.  During his service, being a member in Bhadratha Employee Renevolant and Thrift Mutual Association in Guntur Unit with account No.32414, paid an amount of Rs.100/- p.m. for Rs.1,00,000/- insurance coverage. Subsequently in the month of April, 2008 another amount of Rs.100/- p.m. (totally Rs.200/- pm) was also deducted from his salary as premium under the above scheme.  Under that condition, the department would give Rs.2,00,000/- on payment of Rs.200/- premium per month.  Ex.A1 employee pay slip shows that an amount of Rs.200/- was deducted from the salary of employee. Ex.A7 passbook of complainant’s husband reveals the conditions of policy, in which condition No.2(a) & (b) reads as follows:

                The above conditions clarify that if the monthly payment is Rs.100/- an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid as exgratia to the deceased and if it is Rs.200/-, an exgratia of Rs.2,00,000/- and monthly deposits paid to the deceased.

                The contention of opposite parties is that the exgratia payable depends on two factors i.e., the position and rank of deceased person in the hierarchy of police department and the amount of subscription collected from such employee, can not be weighed because there is no mention of such point in any of the documents produced by complainant such as passbook or the employee pay certificate.  Even the opposite parties have not produced any kind of document to substantiate their version. 

                After the death of deceased on 09-06-08 Rs.1,00,000/- is settled to the complainant as a nominee to the deceased.  Since the employee paid Rs.200/- pm as premium he is supposed to get Rs.2,00,000/- according to policy conditions.  The opposite parties owe to pay another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and monthly deposits to the complainant.             

                In view of the above discussion, the Forum opines that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.   Hence, they are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards insurance coverage for the amount paid from April, 2008 and with monthly deposits along with compensation, costs and interest thereon.   

                In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards insurance coverage along with interest @9% p.a. from 09-06-08 (date of death of deceased) till the date of realization.
2. The opposite parties are further directed to pay monthly deposits payable to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs of complaint.
3. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amounts ordered in item No.2 shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. till the date of realization. 

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29^th day of April, 2011.

          Sd/-XXX                      Sd/-XXX                            Sd/-XXX

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT          

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For Opposite parties:    NIL

                                                                                                                PRESIDENT