GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. Vs. RAMANI PRABHAKARAN
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-10-8
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 27,2010

General Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
Ramani Prabhakaran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.) APPELLANTS were the opposite parties and respondents were the complainants in CC 138 of 2006 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not allowing the benefit under the Liability Waiver Scheme to the complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased chitty subscriber, Prabhakaran who joined in the chitty No.5/04 as chital No.47 with sala of Rs. 1,00,000 and the said chitty was prized in his name on 4.10.2004 and the prized chitty amount was put in FD on 5.11.2004. The complainants have also alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not allowing the insurance benefits under the aforesaid Liability Waiver Scheme.
(2.) THE opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the subscriber, Prabhakaran was not entitled for the benefit under the Liability Waiver Scheme because of the fact that the subscriber had exceed 65 years of age on the date of termination of the aforesaid chitty No.5/04. The opposite parties relied on the circular No.68/05 (PLG) dated 11.5.2005 and pointed out clause 3 of the aforesaid circular debarring the subscribers who should exceed 65 years of age on the date of termination of the chitty. The opposite parties further contended that there was no insurance scheme entitling the subscriber or his legal heirs to get any insurance amount. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC138/06.
(3.) BEFORE the Forum below Exs.A1 to A6 and B1 to B7 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint. Both the parties have also filed proof affidavits in lieu of examination in chief. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 29th August 2008 allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party/KSEF Ltd. to waive the balance amount with regard to the chitty of late Prabhakaran and also to give the insurance amount under the said scheme with further direction to pay cost of Rs.2,000 to the complainants. Hence the present appeal. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondents/complainants. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on clause 3 of the B4 circular No.68/05 dated 11.5.2005 and submitted that the subscriber/deceased Prabhakaran was not eligible to get the benefit under the Liability Waiver Scheme. It is further submitted, no insurance scheme was introduced other than the Liability Waiver Scheme and that no insurance amount was due to the subscriber or the legal heirs of the subscriber under the aforesaid Liability Waiver Scheme. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.