The Tobacco Board & one another V/S Rajugowda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Mysore

CC/09/369

Rajugowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tobacco Board & one another - Opp.Party(s)

D.S. Shivaprakash

07 Dec 2009

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/369

Rajugowda						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Tobacco Board & one another Kotak Life Insurance						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 369/09 DATED 07.12.2009 ORDER Complainant Rajugowda S/o late Marigowda & Smt. Sannamma R/at Habbanakuppe Grama, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District. (By Sri. D.S.S., Advocate) Vs. Opposite Party 1. The Regional Manager, The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India), D.No. CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017. 2. The Branch Manager, Kotak Life Insurance, Seeyar Plaza, 102/04, Residency Road, Bangalore. ( By Sri.B.P.K for O.P.1, Sri. G.V.R for O.P.2 Advocate,) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 06.10.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.10.2009 Date of order : 07.12.2009 Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 15 days PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-, and to grant such other reliefs deemed fit. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, mother of the complainant Smt. Sannamma was a tobacco grower. She was registered with the first opposite party at No.TBGR 61102055. She was an agricultural labourer. Also, she used to grow tobacco. She used sell the tobacco to the first opposite party every year at Periyapatna. At the time of selling the tobacco, the first opposite party used to deduct a sum of Rs.1,226.51 from every farmer in order to remit the same to the second opposite party towards yearly premium, for insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the group insurance scheme. Accordingly, the first opposite party had deducted 1,226.51 out of the sale price of the tobacco sold by the mother of the complainant. That amount was remitted to the second opposite party. Mother of the complainant died on 28.05.2007, that was informed to the opposite parties. Opposite parties were requested to disburse the amount under the group insurance scheme. The opposite parties did not choose to make payment. A legal notice was issued. Opposite parties have not taken any action. The opposite parties in collusion with each others and only with an intention to squat the money of poor farmers, they are playing fraud. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties they went on saying that the amount will be disbursed shortly. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint. 3. The first opposite party, in the version admitted most of the facts alleged in the complaint. It is contended that, after the death of Sannamma, the claim form and the death certificate of Sannamma were received by this opposite party by the complainant and the same were forwarded to the second opposite party through the letter dated 04.04.2007, requesting them to settle the claim. But, to the reasons best known to the 2nd opposite party they kept on dodging the matter and did not settle the claim. The second opposite party vide letter dated 12.02.2008 informed the first opposite party about the repudiation of the claim, which was informed to the complainant. It is denied that, there is collusion between both the opposite parties and that, there is deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. It is contended that, the first opposite party is a Government Organization, under the Ministry of Commerce. With an intention of safeguarding the interest of the poor tobacco growers and to bring them under the group insurance policy, for the risk of their life, one of such group was with that of the 2nd opposite party, as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.08.2006, which was entered into between them subject to certain terms and conditions and the policy document dated 23.08.2006, for a period of one year. Under the said policy as many as 38,366 growers were provided the insurance coverage each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by collecting a premium amount of Rs.1,200/- from each of them. After the death of few of the tobacco growers, the 1st opposite party submitted the claims for settlement and majority of them were not settled by the 2nd opposite party by giving one or the other reasons. There were periodical correspondences requesting the 2nd opposite party to settle the claims. A legal notice dated 23.08.2007 was sent to the second opposite party. A letter dated 22.12.2007 was also written to the second opposite party. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against 1st opposite party. 4. The second opposite party, in the version has contended that the complaint is frivolous and baseless. It is stated that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no deficiency of service as alleged is made out. The complaint is an abuse of process of law. The 1st opposite party was very well acted within the terms and conditions of the policy. Rightly, the claim has been repudiated on the basis that, correct age of the life insured was not disclosed. The complainant has no locus standie to file the complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party. The contract is between the first opposite party and the second opposite party. If their is any grievance of the complainant should be against the first opposite party. Second opposite party is not directly responsible to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. It is contended that, on the basis of the information furnished by the first opposite party, insurance cover was issued subjected to the terms and conditions, beliving the information furnished by the first opposite party as true. Various clauses of the policy are referred to. It is contended that, it was the duty of the first opposite party to provide correct age, but the first opposite party failed to comply with its responsibility under the contract. The age of mother of the complainant was mentioned as 50 years. Relying on the information given to be true and genuine, insurance cover was provided. On receipt of the claim form, on investigation true age of the deceased as on the date of the risk commencement, was 85 years. There was concealment and suppression of material facts. The insurance contract is based on the principle of at most good faith. As per the contract, no member will be covered above the age of 69 years. Age of the deceased was 85 years, as on the date of risk commencement. Thus, prima-facie the deceased was not entitle for insurance cover. The true age was suppressed or misrepresented. The complainant in collusion with the first opposite party, tried to mislead the second opposite party. on these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. To substantiate the claim, the claimant has filed his affidavit, narrating the facts alleged in the complaint and has produced certain documents. On the other hand, Regional Manager of the first opposite party has filed his affidavit. For the second opposite party Associate vice President has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the first opposite party, written arguments are filed. Copy of the order of this Forum in CC-61/09 dated 18.05.2009 is produced. For the first opposite party some documents with memo are filed. We have heard the arguments at length of the learned advocate for the complainant, as well as the advocates for both the opposite parties 1 & 2. We have perused the entire material on record. 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the relief sought? 2. What order? 7. Our findings are as under:- Point no.1 : Negative. Point no.2 : As per the order. REASONS 8. Point no. 1:- According the complainant, his mother Sannamma was member of Group Insurance scheme of the second opposite party and that, there was memorandum of understanding between both the opposite parties and that, the first opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.1,226.51 towards the premium and during the cover period, she died and in spite of submission of the claim, that has been repudiated and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The main reason put forth, for repudiation of the claim is that, as per the contract, no member will be covered above the age of 69 years, where as deceased Sannamma was 85 years as on the date of risk commenced. Thus, it is contended that, material facts were concealed and suppressed. 9. So for concern to the first opposite party, it is contended and argued that, it is only forwarding agent just like middleman to assist the tobacco growers. But, at the out set, from the Memorandum of Understanding on record, in fact, it is between opposite party No.1 and 2. Clause 10 provides that, the potentional growers an active members of the Association and age range is between 18 to 70 years. As mentioned in Clause 11, name, gender and age are the required datas. Clause 6 provides that, there is no medical under writing, for members, who are between 18 to 70 years of the age, who stand insured. The clause further provides that, the concerned Auction Superintendent shall certify the age of the insured. The meaning of certify, is a written declaration and that of certified is, to make known as certain. Hence, as provided in clause 6 of Memorandum of Understanding, the first opposite party has to certify the age of the insured as certain. Hence, the contention of the first opposite party that, he is only a middleman or an agent, cannot accept. Certain duties are costed on the first opposite party also as per the Memorandum of Understanding. 10. The policy terms and conditions are produced and the first condition pertains to proof of age. It is provided therein that the policy holder shall submit along with the member data, the age of the members to be covered under the policy. Further, in said condition it is provided that, if at a future date the age is found to be different from the age declared, the company will have right to refuse the claim, in respect of the concerned member. Also, it provides company at any time call for proof of age from the policy holder or the concerned member. In the 4th condition the eligibility of the members is stated that, every proposed new contract will be eligible to be covered only after six months waiting period and that no member will be covered above age 69 and that cover may be limited or declined, as a result of failure to provide correct age of the member. 13th clause provides that, the policy holder must provide up to date member data as stood in the annexure to the company on or before, the first of every month etc.,. Considering these terms in addition to the Memorandum of Understanding noted here before the first opposite party cannot contended that, it is only forwarding agent or a middleman. 11. Hence, from the terms and conditions noted here before with reference to Memorandum of Understanding and of the policy it is fact that, a person to become member of the Group Insurance must be of the age group noted above. No member will be covered above the 69 years. This condition is not at all denied or disputed before us either by the complainant or by the first opposite party. 12. Now, we may proceed to consider the age of the deceased Sannamma. In the complaint, no where, the complainant has stated the age of the deceased. So, also, the complainant in his affidavit has not stated the age of his mother, the deceased. It is relevant to note that, in the reply, the second opposite party has specifically stated that, the claim has been repudiated mainly on the ground of age. That fact is also pleaded in the version by the second opposite party. In spite of it, though the complainant has filed the affidavit after second opposite party filed version, has not denied the age as contended by the second opposite party or not specifically stated that, on the relevant date, the age of his mother was below 69 years. However, when the matter was posted for arguments, learned advocate for the complainant has produced Xerox copy of Ration Card, totally 3 sheets. The first sheet is the cover page, on the second page pertaining to the year 1995, there are some entries of taking some ration and also there is seal of the Tahasildar. That is third page of the Ration Card and 3 could be seen in the said sheet. On the third sheet, which is copy of page number 32, names of the persons covered by the Ration Card are mentioned. In all 5 names, are shown and the first one is Sannamma. Her age is mentioned as 35 years. Though, on the second sheet, there is seal of the Tahasildar, on the last sheet there is no seal or signature of anybody. During the course of arguments, we asked the learned advocate for the complainant to produce the original Ration Card. He submitted that, the original Ration Card is not with the complainant. If really, the original Ration Card is not with complainant how the Xerox copy is obtained and produced, when the matter was posted for argument? More over, these Xerox copy sheets are new or fresh one. The circumstance indicates that, the said Xerox copies were prepared just few days prior to the production. Hence, under the circumstances, the complainant purposely has not produced the original Ration Card. 13. On the other hand, for the opposite parties at annexure 10, Xerox copy of the Ration Card in 2 sheets is produced. Number of the Ration Card and all other particulars are stated. The names and the age of the persons covered by the said Ration Card are mentioned and the same are typed or computerized. The age is mentioned 85 of Sannamma, mother of the complainant, the deceased, who is in question. This first sheet of the Ration Card contains the Ration Card number and so also seal and signature of the person concerned. So also, fare price shop number and other particulars are mentioned. 14. On the other hand, in the three sheets produced for the complainant, the first sheet is in respect of cover of the Ration Card, which is general and no Ration Card number is mentioned. On the third sheet, the names, age and the relation covered by the Ration Card, is in hand writing. At the cost of repetition, in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card, which has been produced for the opposite parties Ration Card number is mentioned, fare price shop number is mentioned. Names, age and relation is typed or computerized and it is duly signed and sealed. But, the Xerox copy, the third sheet produced by the complainant, even, does not bear the seal and signature of the concerned officer. 15. Xerox copy of the claim form that was forwarded to the second opposite party is produced at page 99. The date of birth of Sannamma is left blank. In this farm, the age is not mentioned. In the Xerox copy of the Ration Card that has been produced by the complainant, age of Sannamma is shown as 56 years and that of the present complainant has 55 years and names of two other sons and daughters of the deceased are mentioned and their age is shown as 34, 32 and 24 respectively. On the other hand, in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card i.e., produced by the opposite parties as noted above, age of the deceased Sannamma as shown as 85 years and that of present complainant 50 years and name of eldest son Sannegowda as 55 years. When age of eldest son Sannegowda is 55 years, the age of his mother Sannamma cannot be 56 years. The Xerox copy of the Ration Card produced by the complainant cannot be believed, because at the age of one, Sannamma could not have given birth to his son. The age of the present complainant Rajugowda, in the Xerox copy produced by him is shown 36 years and his younger brother age Sannegowda and Ramesh is 34 and 32 years, but in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card produced, for the opposite party, in fact age of Sannegowda is mentioned as 55 years, who is eldest and name of present complainant Rajugowda is shown as 50 years. Also, it is relevant to note that, there is an affidavit sworn to regarding the age of the family members, which is at annexure-7 on page 72. It is the Xerox copy of the affidavit of the present complainant Rajugowda. In this affidavit, age of his mother Sannamma is mentioned as 60 years. It is important to note that the notary has duly sealed and signed the said affidavit as if the said person has sworn to before him. However, the person who was to swear that affidavit has not at all signed the affidavit. Only cross mark is put. We failed to understand that in the absence of the signature of the person on the affidavit, how the notary has sealed and signed the said affidavit. 16. In the complaint, in the middle of 4th paragraph, the complainant has alleged that, both opposite parties colluding each other, are playing fraud on the poor farmers. That is also stated on oath by the complainant in his affidavit, in the third paragraph. On the other hand, the second opposite party all along have contended that, though the age of deceased Sannamma was 85 years, that was concealed and suppressed. That is pleaded in the version and stated by the vice president of the second opposite party in the affidavit. In the affidavit, also it is stated for the second opposite party that, the life insured is based on the principle of at most good faith. 17. At the cost of again repeating, the complainant in the complaint, has not specifically pleaded the age of his mother Sannamma and so also not stated in the affidavit, in addition to the fact that, though there is an affidavit, which is in fact signed and sealed by the notary, the complainant himself has not signed it. All these facts prima-facie makes it clear that, the complainant has avoided to disclose true age of his mother all along and only during the course of arguments, Xerox copy (only 3 sheets) of Ration Card is produced along with the memo. In the third sheet as discussed here before, the age of mother of the complainant is shown as 56 years and that sheet is neither sealed nor signed by the competent authority. We are of the considered opinion that, the complainant has produced these fake or false or concocted document just to support his false claim made by him in the complaint. We will separately consider regarding taking criminal action against the complainant, for producing and relying upon false and fabricated document, in support of false claim. However, at this stage, we are of the opinion that, the complaint of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and hence, as provided Under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, we feel it absolutely just to impose the cost as provided therein. 18. Repudiation of the claim by the second opposite party is fully justified. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or un fair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party. The complainant is not entitle to any reliefs but he is liable to pay the cost for filing false and vexatious complaint and production of false or concocted document, in support of said claim. 19. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in negative. 20. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Out of the cost paid or recovered, Rs.1,000/- the second opposite party is entitled and the remaining amount shall be credited to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum. 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th December 2009) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 369/09 DATED 07.12.2009 ORDER Complainant Rajugowda S/o late Marigowda & Smt. Sannamma R/at Habbanakuppe Grama, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District. (By Sri. D.S.S., Advocate) Vs. Opposite Party 1. The Regional Manager, The Tobacco Board, (Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India), D.No. CA-5673-C, 14th Main, II Stage, Near Yoga Narasimha Swamy Temple, Vijayanagara, Mysore-570017. 2. The Branch Manager, Kotak Life Insurance, Seeyar Plaza, 102/04, Residency Road, Bangalore. ( By Sri.B.P.K for O.P.1, Sri. G.V.R for O.P.2 Advocate,) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 06.10.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : 21.10.2009 Date of order : 07.12.2009 Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 15 days PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,000/-, and to grant such other reliefs deemed fit. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that, mother of the complainant Smt. Sannamma was a tobacco grower. She was registered with the first opposite party at No.TBGR 61102055. She was an agricultural labourer. Also, she used to grow tobacco. She used sell the tobacco to the first opposite party every year at Periyapatna. At the time of selling the tobacco, the first opposite party used to deduct a sum of Rs.1,226.51 from every farmer in order to remit the same to the second opposite party towards yearly premium, for insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the group insurance scheme. Accordingly, the first opposite party had deducted 1,226.51 out of the sale price of the tobacco sold by the mother of the complainant. That amount was remitted to the second opposite party. Mother of the complainant died on 28.05.2007, that was informed to the opposite parties. Opposite parties were requested to disburse the amount under the group insurance scheme. The opposite parties did not choose to make payment. A legal notice was issued. Opposite parties have not taken any action. The opposite parties in collusion with each others and only with an intention to squat the money of poor farmers, they are playing fraud. Whenever the complainant approached the opposite parties they went on saying that the amount will be disbursed shortly. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint. 3. The first opposite party, in the version admitted most of the facts alleged in the complaint. It is contended that, after the death of Sannamma, the claim form and the death certificate of Sannamma were received by this opposite party by the complainant and the same were forwarded to the second opposite party through the letter dated 04.04.2007, requesting them to settle the claim. But, to the reasons best known to the 2nd opposite party they kept on dodging the matter and did not settle the claim. The second opposite party vide letter dated 12.02.2008 informed the first opposite party about the repudiation of the claim, which was informed to the complainant. It is denied that, there is collusion between both the opposite parties and that, there is deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. It is contended that, the first opposite party is a Government Organization, under the Ministry of Commerce. With an intention of safeguarding the interest of the poor tobacco growers and to bring them under the group insurance policy, for the risk of their life, one of such group was with that of the 2nd opposite party, as per Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.08.2006, which was entered into between them subject to certain terms and conditions and the policy document dated 23.08.2006, for a period of one year. Under the said policy as many as 38,366 growers were provided the insurance coverage each for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by collecting a premium amount of Rs.1,200/- from each of them. After the death of few of the tobacco growers, the 1st opposite party submitted the claims for settlement and majority of them were not settled by the 2nd opposite party by giving one or the other reasons. There were periodical correspondences requesting the 2nd opposite party to settle the claims. A legal notice dated 23.08.2007 was sent to the second opposite party. A letter dated 22.12.2007 was also written to the second opposite party. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint against 1st opposite party. 4. The second opposite party, in the version has contended that the complaint is frivolous and baseless. It is stated that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no deficiency of service as alleged is made out. The complaint is an abuse of process of law. The 1st opposite party was very well acted within the terms and conditions of the policy. Rightly, the claim has been repudiated on the basis that, correct age of the life insured was not disclosed. The complainant has no locus standie to file the complaint. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second opposite party. The contract is between the first opposite party and the second opposite party. If their is any grievance of the complainant should be against the first opposite party. Second opposite party is not directly responsible to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer. It is contended that, on the basis of the information furnished by the first opposite party, insurance cover was issued subjected to the terms and conditions, beliving the information furnished by the first opposite party as true. Various clauses of the policy are referred to. It is contended that, it was the duty of the first opposite party to provide correct age, but the first opposite party failed to comply with its responsibility under the contract. The age of mother of the complainant was mentioned as 50 years. Relying on the information given to be true and genuine, insurance cover was provided. On receipt of the claim form, on investigation true age of the deceased as on the date of the risk commencement, was 85 years. There was concealment and suppression of material facts. The insurance contract is based on the principle of at most good faith. As per the contract, no member will be covered above the age of 69 years. Age of the deceased was 85 years, as on the date of risk commencement. Thus, prima-facie the deceased was not entitle for insurance cover. The true age was suppressed or misrepresented. The complainant in collusion with the first opposite party, tried to mislead the second opposite party. on these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 5. To substantiate the claim, the claimant has filed his affidavit, narrating the facts alleged in the complaint and has produced certain documents. On the other hand, Regional Manager of the first opposite party has filed his affidavit. For the second opposite party Associate vice President has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the first opposite party, written arguments are filed. Copy of the order of this Forum in CC-61/09 dated 18.05.2009 is produced. For the first opposite party some documents with memo are filed. We have heard the arguments at length of the learned advocate for the complainant, as well as the advocates for both the opposite parties 1 & 2. We have perused the entire material on record. 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:- 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or either of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the relief sought? 2. What order? 7. Our findings are as under:- Point no.1 : Negative. Point no.2 : As per the order. REASONS 8. Point no. 1:- According the complainant, his mother Sannamma was member of Group Insurance scheme of the second opposite party and that, there was memorandum of understanding between both the opposite parties and that, the first opposite party deducted a sum of Rs.1,226.51 towards the premium and during the cover period, she died and in spite of submission of the claim, that has been repudiated and hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The main reason put forth, for repudiation of the claim is that, as per the contract, no member will be covered above the age of 69 years, where as deceased Sannamma was 85 years as on the date of risk commenced. Thus, it is contended that, material facts were concealed and suppressed. 9. So for concern to the first opposite party, it is contended and argued that, it is only forwarding agent just like middleman to assist the tobacco growers. But, at the out set, from the Memorandum of Understanding on record, in fact, it is between opposite party No.1 and 2. Clause 10 provides that, the potentional growers an active members of the Association and age range is between 18 to 70 years. As mentioned in Clause 11, name, gender and age are the required datas. Clause 6 provides that, there is no medical under writing, for members, who are between 18 to 70 years of the age, who stand insured. The clause further provides that, the concerned Auction Superintendent shall certify the age of the insured. The meaning of certify, is a written declaration and that of certified is, to make known as certain. Hence, as provided in clause 6 of Memorandum of Understanding, the first opposite party has to certify the age of the insured as certain. Hence, the contention of the first opposite party that, he is only a middleman or an agent, cannot accept. Certain duties are costed on the first opposite party also as per the Memorandum of Understanding. 10. The policy terms and conditions are produced and the first condition pertains to proof of age. It is provided therein that the policy holder shall submit along with the member data, the age of the members to be covered under the policy. Further, in said condition it is provided that, if at a future date the age is found to be different from the age declared, the company will have right to refuse the claim, in respect of the concerned member. Also, it provides company at any time call for proof of age from the policy holder or the concerned member. In the 4th condition the eligibility of the members is stated that, every proposed new contract will be eligible to be covered only after six months waiting period and that no member will be covered above age 69 and that cover may be limited or declined, as a result of failure to provide correct age of the member. 13th clause provides that, the policy holder must provide up to date member data as stood in the annexure to the company on or before, the first of every month etc.,. Considering these terms in addition to the Memorandum of Understanding noted here before the first opposite party cannot contended that, it is only forwarding agent or a middleman. 11. Hence, from the terms and conditions noted here before with reference to Memorandum of Understanding and of the policy it is fact that, a person to become member of the Group Insurance must be of the age group noted above. No member will be covered above the 69 years. This condition is not at all denied or disputed before us either by the complainant or by the first opposite party. 12. Now, we may proceed to consider the age of the deceased Sannamma. In the complaint, no where, the complainant has stated the age of the deceased. So, also, the complainant in his affidavit has not stated the age of his mother, the deceased. It is relevant to note that, in the reply, the second opposite party has specifically stated that, the claim has been repudiated mainly on the ground of age. That fact is also pleaded in the version by the second opposite party. In spite of it, though the complainant has filed the affidavit after second opposite party filed version, has not denied the age as contended by the second opposite party or not specifically stated that, on the relevant date, the age of his mother was below 69 years. However, when the matter was posted for arguments, learned advocate for the complainant has produced Xerox copy of Ration Card, totally 3 sheets. The first sheet is the cover page, on the second page pertaining to the year 1995, there are some entries of taking some ration and also there is seal of the Tahasildar. That is third page of the Ration Card and 3 could be seen in the said sheet. On the third sheet, which is copy of page number 32, names of the persons covered by the Ration Card are mentioned. In all 5 names, are shown and the first one is Sannamma. Her age is mentioned as 35 years. Though, on the second sheet, there is seal of the Tahasildar, on the last sheet there is no seal or signature of anybody. During the course of arguments, we asked the learned advocate for the complainant to produce the original Ration Card. He submitted that, the original Ration Card is not with the complainant. If really, the original Ration Card is not with complainant how the Xerox copy is obtained and produced, when the matter was posted for argument? More over, these Xerox copy sheets are new or fresh one. The circumstance indicates that, the said Xerox copies were prepared just few days prior to the production. Hence, under the circumstances, the complainant purposely has not produced the original Ration Card. 13. On the other hand, for the opposite parties at annexure 10, Xerox copy of the Ration Card in 2 sheets is produced. Number of the Ration Card and all other particulars are stated. The names and the age of the persons covered by the said Ration Card are mentioned and the same are typed or computerized. The age is mentioned 85 of Sannamma, mother of the complainant, the deceased, who is in question. This first sheet of the Ration Card contains the Ration Card number and so also seal and signature of the person concerned. So also, fare price shop number and other particulars are mentioned. 14. On the other hand, in the three sheets produced for the complainant, the first sheet is in respect of cover of the Ration Card, which is general and no Ration Card number is mentioned. On the third sheet, the names, age and the relation covered by the Ration Card, is in hand writing. At the cost of repetition, in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card, which has been produced for the opposite parties Ration Card number is mentioned, fare price shop number is mentioned. Names, age and relation is typed or computerized and it is duly signed and sealed. But, the Xerox copy, the third sheet produced by the complainant, even, does not bear the seal and signature of the concerned officer. 15. Xerox copy of the claim form that was forwarded to the second opposite party is produced at page 99. The date of birth of Sannamma is left blank. In this farm, the age is not mentioned. In the Xerox copy of the Ration Card that has been produced by the complainant, age of Sannamma is shown as 56 years and that of the present complainant has 55 years and names of two other sons and daughters of the deceased are mentioned and their age is shown as 34, 32 and 24 respectively. On the other hand, in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card i.e., produced by the opposite parties as noted above, age of the deceased Sannamma as shown as 85 years and that of present complainant 50 years and name of eldest son Sannegowda as 55 years. When age of eldest son Sannegowda is 55 years, the age of his mother Sannamma cannot be 56 years. The Xerox copy of the Ration Card produced by the complainant cannot be believed, because at the age of one, Sannamma could not have given birth to his son. The age of the present complainant Rajugowda, in the Xerox copy produced by him is shown 36 years and his younger brother age Sannegowda and Ramesh is 34 and 32 years, but in the Xerox copy of the Ration Card produced, for the opposite party, in fact age of Sannegowda is mentioned as 55 years, who is eldest and name of present complainant Rajugowda is shown as 50 years. Also, it is relevant to note that, there is an affidavit sworn to regarding the age of the family members, which is at annexure-7 on page 72. It is the Xerox copy of the affidavit of the present complainant Rajugowda. In this affidavit, age of his mother Sannamma is mentioned as 60 years. It is important to note that the notary has duly sealed and signed the said affidavit as if the said person has sworn to before him. However, the person who was to swear that affidavit has not at all signed the affidavit. Only cross mark is put. We failed to understand that in the absence of the signature of the person on the affidavit, how the notary has sealed and signed the said affidavit. 16. In the complaint, in the middle of 4th paragraph, the complainant has alleged that, both opposite parties colluding each other, are playing fraud on the poor farmers. That is also stated on oath by the complainant in his affidavit, in the third paragraph. On the other hand, the second opposite party all along have contended that, though the age of deceased Sannamma was 85 years, that was concealed and suppressed. That is pleaded in the version and stated by the vice president of the second opposite party in the affidavit. In the affidavit, also it is stated for the second opposite party that, the life insured is based on the principle of at most good faith. 17. At the cost of again repeating, the complainant in the complaint, has not specifically pleaded the age of his mother Sannamma and so also not stated in the affidavit, in addition to the fact that, though there is an affidavit, which is in fact signed and sealed by the notary, the complainant himself has not signed it. All these facts prima-facie makes it clear that, the complainant has avoided to disclose true age of his mother all along and only during the course of arguments, Xerox copy (only 3 sheets) of Ration Card is produced along with the memo. In the third sheet as discussed here before, the age of mother of the complainant is shown as 56 years and that sheet is neither sealed nor signed by the competent authority. We are of the considered opinion that, the complainant has produced these fake or false or concocted document just to support his false claim made by him in the complaint. We will separately consider regarding taking criminal action against the complainant, for producing and relying upon false and fabricated document, in support of false claim. However, at this stage, we are of the opinion that, the complaint of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious and hence, as provided Under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, we feel it absolutely just to impose the cost as provided therein. 18. Repudiation of the claim by the second opposite party is fully justified. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service or un fair trade practice on the part of the second opposite party. The complainant is not entitle to any reliefs but he is liable to pay the cost for filing false and vexatious complaint and production of false or concocted document, in support of said claim. 19. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in negative. 20. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order. ORDER 1. The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. Out of the cost paid or recovered, Rs.1,000/- the second opposite party is entitled and the remaining amount shall be credited to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum. 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th December 2009) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member

......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.