Complaint filed on: 13-12-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 07-06-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.184/2022

Sri,C.G. Srinivas S/o Late Govindaiah,

Aged about 29 years, R/at Cheluru,

Cheluru Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,

Tumakuru District.

……………….Complainant/s

(By Sri. Satheesh .H. Adv.,)

                                                V/s

1.       The Secretary/Manager,

          Agriculture Production Board,

          Near KSRTC Bus Stand,

          Gubbi Town, Gubbi-572 206.

2.       The Chief Manager,

          Karnataka State Agricultural,

          Marketing Board,

          Bangalore-560 001.

……………….Opposite Party/s

(OP No.1 - By Sri. G.H.Ravi, Adv.,)

(OP No.2 -  By Sri. Gangegowda, Adv.,)

:ORDER:

BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, with a prayer to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 with interest from the date of death i.e., 09.06.2018 to till realization in the interest of justice.

2.       In this case opposite parties are / were, the Secretary/Manager, Agriculture production Board Near K.S.R.T.C Bus stand Gubbi Town, Gubbi-572206 and the Chief Manager, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bangaore-560001. (hear in after called OP No.1 and 2.)
3.       It is the case of the complaint that, the complainant is the son and nominee of deceased Sri.Govindaiah, who was, working as Amali at Sri.Byraveshwara Traders (owner Sri. C.S. Narasima, Cheluru), and died on 09.06.2018 while working. Deceased Sri. Govindaiah was a licensed Amali / Cooli at Agricultural Production Market Board, Gubbi and he,  got  renewed his amali license on 15-02-2018, by paying prescribed application & renewal fee of Rs. 2.00 and Rs 10.00 respectively for the period 2018-19, vide receipt No. 017391 dated 15-02-2018. It is further submitted that diseased Sri Govindaiah was beneficiary under Prime Minister (PMJJBY & PMSBY) scheme during 2018-2019. After the death of Sri.Govindaiah,  his son and nominee Sri. C.G.Srinivas, who is a complainant approached the OP No.1 for the settlement of PMJJBY & PMSBY compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The OP No.1 replied to the complainant stating that as per the OP No.2 letter No. 4427/2022-23 dated 08-09-2022, amount of Rs.30,000/- to be settled as a compensation instead of Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant approached the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to settle the compensation of PMJJBY & PMSBY since the deceased Sri.Govindaiah paid premium of Rs.206/- from committee fund for the period 2018-19 and he died on 09.06.2018.  In spite of several approaches and the legal notice dated:12.07.2022, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 not settled PMJJBY & PMSBY.  Hence, this complaint.

4.        After the complaint registered, notices were served to OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Their counsel appeared, but not filed their version even sufficient time was granted to them. 

5.   The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence.  The OPs did not filed their affidavit evidence in spite of several opportunities were given to them.  The counsel for complainant produced copies of documents.
6.  

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: Partly affirmative

Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the below

:R E A S O N S:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):-

8.       The Complainant was the consumer, as per the Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant produced copy of the legal notice dated 12-07-2022 and postal acknowledgements of said notice duly served to the OP NO 1 & OP No2, copy of renewal application and fee of Rs 2.00 & Rs 10.00 respectively paid to the OP No 1, copy of Reply notice dated 19^th October 2022 by OP No1, copy of OP No 1 letter dated 20-06-2022, and copy of adhar card of the complainant.

9.       The OP No 1 counsel produced copy of OP 2 Reply Notice l dated 08-09-2022,acknowledgement letter of the complainant received Rs 10000.00 towards funeral expenses, copy of LIC letter dated 30-10-2019, and copy of meeting proceeding of OP No 2 dated 30-09-2021. On perusal of OP No 2 meeting proceedings dated 30-09-2021, the committee decided to pay compensation of Rs 30000.00 to the Amali who died and enrolled in PMJJBY scheme during 2018-19.

10.     Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY); The PMJJBY is available to people in the age group of 18 to 50 years having a bank account who give their consent to join / enable auto-debit. Aadhar would be the primary KYC for the bank account. The life cover of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be for the one year period stretching from 1st June to 31st May and will be renewable. The policy year is 1^st June to 31^st May, renewable in June every year. Risk coverage under this scheme is for Rs. 2 Lakh in case of death of the insured, due to any reason. The scheme is being offered by Life Insurance Corporation and all other life insurers who are willing to offer the product on similar terms with necessary approvals and tie up with banks for this purpose.

11.     Answering to the OP NO 1 contention, in its written arguments, that the complainant has to prove that, the deceased Sri, Govindaiah, who was, working as Amali at Sri.Byraveshwara Traders (owner Sri C.S. Narasima, Cheluru) and eligible to receive compensation of Rs 200000.00 under PMJJBY scheme. It’s the admitted fact that the OP No 1, in its reply notice dated 19-10-2022, and in written arguments para 4, 5, & 6, that the diseased Sri, Govindaiah was registered Amali, and died on 09-06-2018, in turn the OP NO 1 on 13-08-2018 paid Rs 10000.00, vide cheque No 751049 to the complainant, who was nominee and son, towards funeral financial assistance. Further admitted that the diseased Sri, Govindaiah was beneficiary under PMJJBY & PMSBY scheme for the period 2018-19 since premium of Rs 206.00 paid from samiti fund.

12.     The OP No 1 defense of, PMJJBY schemes were implemented in association with LIC of India, on 30-10-2019 LIC of India replied to OP NO 2 ( Annexure 2 of OP No 1) that, as the converged PMJJBY scheme is not in force, we are returning the captioned instrument as the same cannot be accounted at our end. As a result The OP NO 2 decided to pay compensation of Rs 30000.00 (Annexure 1 of OP No1) to the Amalies / cooloies, who enrolled under PMJJBY scheme and who died. On contrary The OP No 1, in its reply letter dated 08-09-2022 and written arguments admitted that the, diseased Sri Govindaiaah was a beneficiary under PMJJBY for the year 2018-19. The PMJJBY scheme policy year is 1^st June to 31^st May, renewable in June every year, accordingly in this case, the diseased Sri Govindaiah, who was working as Amali, premium of Rs 206.00 paid from the Samiti fund for the period 2018-19, towards PMJJBY scheme and died on 09-06-2018, as per PMJJBY scheme, his nominee is entitled to receive compensation of Rs 200000.00. It’s the bound duty of the OP No 1 & OP No 2, to pay the collected premium amount to the insurer (LIC OF INDIA) within stipulated time to get the policy renewed, but due to negligence of OP No 1 & OP No 2, the complainant fails to get the PMJJBY compensation of Rs 200000.00, which is proved by insurer (LIC Of India) letter dated 30-10-2019 and meeting proceeding of OP No 2 dated 30-09-2021.

13. In this case, the PMJJBY scheme implemented in association with, LIC of India and premium amount paid from Samiti fund. As alleged by the complainant, in complaint, that, premium of Rs 206.00 paid by Late Sri, Govindaiah, to prove this, the complainant not placed any believable materials on record and not impleded the LIC of India as a necessary party to the case.   

14.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity V. State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC)77; AIR 2022 SC 577, wherein Para-11, held that, “The requirement of leading detailed evidence could not be ground to shut the doors of any Forum created under the Act like Consumer Protection Act.  The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined, is whether questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry”. 

15.     In the above discussion, in this case, he complainant approached the OP No 1 & OP No 2 to settle the compensation under PMJJBY scheme, it’s the bound duty of the OP No 1 & 2 to process and settled the same, but  on 13-08-2018, the OP No 1 paid Rs 10000.00 vide cheque dated 13-08-2018, bearing No 751049 towards funeral expenses and failed to settled the compensation under PMJJBY scheme. The OP No 1 on 20-06-2022, in its letter to the complainant, offered Rs 30000.00 compensation, instead of processing PMJJBY scheme compensation, by giving reason of LIC letter dated 30-10-2019, as converged PMJJBY scheme not in force. Even though, the complainant approached the OP No 1 & OP No 2, immediately after his father death i.e.  09-06-2018, the OP No 1 & OP No 2, not taken steps to process to get PMJJBY scheme compensation, which leads to deficiency on the part of OP No 1 and OP No2, and compelled the complainant to approach this commission, hence they are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000-00 to the complainant. The OP No 2.in its, meeting proceeding dated 30-09-2021, decided to give compensation of Rs 30000.00 to all PMJJBY scheme enrolled beneficiary (Amalies) as a policy,  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

:O R D E R:

The complaint is allowed in part.

The OP No.1 and OP No.2 jointly severally liable to pay            Rs.30,000.00  with interest @ 8.50 % pa from 13-08-2018 to till the date of realization to the complainant. 

The OP Nos.1 & OP No.2 are further directed to pay Rs.20,000.00         towards compensation and Rs.10,000-00 towards litigation cost to the complainant.

 The OP No.1 and OP No.2 are further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order. Otherwise it carries fine of Rs 150 per day.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.