The complainant was a coconut climber who was a member under the Karshaka Raksha Insurance Scheme with Code No.1106. The Members of Karshaka Raksha Insurance Scheme were insured as per policy No.4776070000044. The complainant was insured for the period from 2-10-99 to 1-10-2000. The complainant sustained injury in an accident during the course of employment ie. falling from a coconut tree while he was doing his job on2-9-2000. At the time of the accident 2-9-2000 the complainant was insured under the scheme. Complainant applied for benefit under the scheme but did not receive any response. He sent a notice to opposite party-3 the insurance company on 10-11-04. Opposite party-3 sent a reply repudiating the claim. Hence this complaint.

Opposite party-1 and 2 have filed a joint version. They have admitted in their version that the complainant was a member under the Karhska Raksha insurance scheme. He was included in the member list of the Beypore Krishi Bhavan Karshaka Raksha scheme. For the protection of the members of the scheme the Government of Kerala has remitted One Crore Rupees under the scheme by which10 Lakhs of Agriculturists were protected. The insurance company and Government of Kerala had entered into an agreement as per the Master policy No.4776070000044. The period of insurance was from 2-10-99 A.N. to 1-10-2000 F.N. Opposite party-1 and 2 have remitted the premium and renewed the policy during the following years. Opposite party-3 the insurance company cannot exempt themselves from the responsibility of allowing the claim after receiving the policy premium. The 3rd opposite party is liable to grant the claim of the complainant. The complainant will come under the Karshaka Raksha scheme, as he is a member of the particular scheme. The 3rd opposite party has entered into an agreement with the second opposite party for a period from 2-10-99 to 1-10-2000. The accident of the complainant occurred on 2-9-2000. Hence the 3rd opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as per the agreement between 3rd and second opposite party. If the complainant has suffered by not receiving claim amount only opposite party-3 is liable as first opposite party had sent the premium amount of the complainant to 3rd opposite party on time. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of opposite party-1 and 2. Opposite party-1 and 2 have remitted the premium amount to the 3rd opposite party on time and also sent a claim of the complainant after taking necessary action to 3rd opposite party. Hence the second opposite party submits that opposite party-1 and 2 are not liable for the relief sought in the petition.

Opposite party-3 filed version denying the allegations and averments contained in the petition except those that are specifically admitted. Opposite party-3 contends that the petitioner was not a member of the Karshka Raksha Group Personal accident policy. Opposite party-3 has issued the policy for a period of 2-10-99 to 1-10-2000 and it was renewed for the period 12-10-2000 to 11-10-2000. As per the agreement between the Government of Kerala and 3rd opposite party risk in respect of every farmer commences from the date of receipt of the list containing his name in third opposite party’s office from the respective Krishi Bhavan. The list containing the name of Mr. Sreedharan, the petitioner reached the office of opposite party-3 from Beypore Krishi Bhavan on 10-4-01. The accident occurred on 2-9-2000. Therefore 3rd opposite party repudiated the claim and intimated the same to opposite party-2. Opposite party-3 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant, as there was no deficiency in service of 3rd opposite party. Opposite party-1 and 2 has failed to furnish the list of persons in time and the compensation if any payable to the petitioner opposite party-1 and 2 are only liable. Opposite party-3 prays to dismiss the complaint awarding cost to opposite party-3.


The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral evidence was adduced by the petitioner. Opposite parties had neither adduced evidence nor marked any documents on opposite parties’ side.

Opposite party-1 and 2 have admitted in their version that the complainant was a member of the Karshka Raksha Group Insurance Policy during the period 1-10-99 to 1-10-2000. The complainant was a coconut climber. Government of Kerala had specifically introduced this insurance policy for the protection of poor ordinary agriculturist. Opposite party-1 and 2 had also admitted that they have included the petitioner as a member in this scheme from the Beypore Krishi Bhavan, Government of Kerala had remitted One Crore rupees as premium towards the pariraksha of about Ten Lakshs agriculturist.

The complainant had an accident on 2-9-2000 while he was climbing the coconut tree of one Mr. Madayi Raveendran. The complainant was admitted in the P.V.S. Hospital had incurred expenses towards hospitalization treatment and medicine Government of Kerala had specifically introduced this scheme to help persons working in the agricultural field if they faced with any difficulties. The complainant had applied through opposite party-1 for the claim amount to the 3rd opposite party as he is entitled by the agreement between 3rd opposite party and Government of Kerala. Opposite party-3 had repudiated the claim stating that the list including the name of the complainant did not reach opposite party-3 in time. So according to opposite party-3 the complainant did not have the protection of the scheme when the accident occurred to him. Opposite paty-1 and 2 clearly stated that the complainant is a member of this particular scheme and accident occurred on 2-9-2000 during the policy period. Opposite party-3 also has not a view that the complainant is not a member of this scheme. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence orally or produced any documents to prove their case.

The Forum is convinced that the complainant was a member of the Group Insurance Policy for which the premium was remitted to 3rd opposite party. Accident occurred during the policy period. In this circumstance definitely opposite party-3 is bound to pay the claim amount to the petitioner. The complainant need not be concerned as to when the list containing his name reached the 3rd opposite party. Opposite party-1 and 2 have ascertained that they have taken necessary action and informed opposite party-3 in time about complainant’s accident claim. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the claim amount. The complainant has produced a copy of the certificate dated 3-1-2001 issued by Dr. A. Rajagopal which is marked as Ext.A2 which explains that the complainant was examined by the doctor and found that he was suffering due to a fall from a tree. Certificate also shows that the injury resulted in permanent disablement by which the complainant is incapable of continuing his avocation of climbing coconut tree, arecanut tree etc. Ext.A3 produced by the complainant shows the copies of the bills from P.V.S. Hospital and Diamond Scan Centre. According to the complainant he has incurred an amount of Rs.5035.45 as expenses for his treatment. The Forum is convinced of the genuinety of complainant’s case.



In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party-3 is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.5035/- with 12% interest from 31-1-2005 that is the date of filing of the complaint till realization and a compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.