FA.317/05

JUDGMENT DATED: 12.11.09

The appellant is the complainant in OP.74/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The 1^st opposite party has been directed to pay  Rs.1400/- with 3.5%  interest per annum and the 2^nd opposite party directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant.  The appellant/complainant has sought for  setting aside the 2^nd part of the order.  The 2^nd opposite party to pay compensation and cost . 

The 2^nd  opposite party  collection agent of the 1^st opposite party is absconding. It is the case of the complainant that he joint in the recurring deposit scheme of the 1^st opposite party bank and she remitted 14 installments to the 2^nd opposite party agent.  The scheme for the period of 5 years.  It is her case that the 2^nd opposite party abstained from collecting the deposits. It was found that            .in time by the 2^nd opposite party.

It is the contention of the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has not followed the proper procedure for getting back the amount  look depositing pass book along with the application for  getting back the amount deposited.  We find that it is the case of the complainant that she approached the 1^st opposite party in several times and  even sent a lawyer notice and it is there after  that the complaint has been filed.  The complainant also produced copy of the lawyer notice and report of the courier.  We find  appellant has been filed complaint that the opposite party could have given the amount to the complainant  or remitted the amount before the Forum.  We find that  the direction of the Forum to realize compensation and cost from the  2^nd opposite party verges on absurdity.  2^nd opposite party is absconding.  2^nd opposite party is duly  appointed agent of the 1^st opposite party even as per admission.  We find appeal is also to be allowed .  It is directed that the 1^st opposite party will also pay the amount of compensation and cost at the rate  ordered by the Forum below.  It is clarified that liability to pay amounts will be at the 1^st  opposite party bank.  The appeal is allowed as above.

FA.485/09

JUDGMENT DATED: 12.11.2009

The appellant is the complainant in CC.1272/06 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The complaint filed with the appellants for reimbursement of treatment expenses as per policy with the opposite parties stands dismissed.

It is thec ase of the complainant that  on 5.8.05 during the period of policy coverage fell on the ground while  pulling his vehicle while he was engaged in Tsunami relief activities  at Kollam district.  The complainant is  Executive Director, Janane4ethi Institution as  Socail Welfare organisattion.  According to him he underwent treatment at Karuna Ayurvedic hospital at Pala from 9.8.05 to 26.8.05.  For severe back pain which was occasioned on account of the above fall with claim submitted for Rs.27130/- was rejected and the claim repudiated.

The opposite party has denied the case set up by the complainant .  It is contended  treatment with respect pre existing disease and that the back pain who was caused on account of pulling of the vehicle as only aggrevated condition  that they arte in acceptance earlier.  It is also contended that the policy covered only treatment in government hospitals.

The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 and R1 to R6.

We find that the Forum has accepted version of the respondents that the treatment underwent was  with respect  to a existing illness.  The Forum has also noted that the ExtR6 letter from the above Physician of Aamrutham Aryavaidya Pharmacy with the treatments Elakizhi, Navarakizhi, Lepam and vasthi cannot be administered during the period of  9.8.05 to 26.8.05.  We find that the parties has not adduce evidence properly before the Forum not even proof affidavit has been filed.  In the circumstance we find that the parties are  being provided with opportunity to adduce evidence.  In the circumstance order of the Forum is set aside.  The matter remitted back to the Forum. 

          The case stands posted before the Forum on 29.12.09.

          Office is directed to forward the LCR as well as the copy of the order urgently.

APPEAL 111/09

JUDGMENT DATED:12.11.09

          The  appellants  are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC 58/06 in  the file of CDRF, Wayanad.  The bill issued by the appellants for a sum of Rs.16200/- dated 27.9.2000 stands set aside. The appellants are directed to issue fresh bill for striking back assessment for 3 months and limiting the penalty for an amount of 1 ½ times interest of 6 months and 3 times as has been billed.

          The Forum has relied the decision of Hon’ble High court of Kerala in KSEB Vs. C.Najeeb and another(2005) I KLJ 344.  It is  the contention at the time as per section 42(d) of the Condition of Supply as it was then existing the provision was to   for back assessment for 6 months and at 3 times.  It is pointed out that the OP was filed as OP 269/2000 by the predecessor    instead      of the complainant subsequently he expired.  Permission was sought to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file fresh complaint hence present complaint ie, OP58/06 was filed.  The counsel for the respondent has pointed out that  the amount involved  is  that high and the law as change as to be applied is the matter has pending adjudication.  There is no illegality in applying  in the present  law.  In the circumstance we find no interference  in the order of the Forum is call for.   Although decision of the facts cited related to period subsequent to the commencement of the new Act.  In the circumstance the appeal is dismissed.