ORDER D.o.F: 8/3/06

D.o.O: 20/3/09
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.29/06
Dated this, the 20th day of March 2009
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER

1.Smt.Shyamala,

W/o Late Laxmanan.
2.Prabaha, D/o Late Laxmanan
3.Prabesh, S/o Late Laxmanan : Complainants
All are R/at Kizhur Kadappuram,
Po.Chandragiri(via) Kalanad,Kasaragod.

1.The Commissioner,
Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board,
Head Office, Trichur-1.
2.Director of Insurance,
Kerala State Insurance Department, : Opposite parties
Thiruvananthapuram.
3.The Managing Director,
Matsyafed, Karuvankonam,
Thiruvananthapuram.

ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief is as follows:
The complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Laxmanan a fisherman. He was a member of Fisheries office Kizhur with membership No.57 affiliated to Ist opposite party. Opposite party No.1 has collected Janata Personal Accident premium under JPA scheme with 2nd opposite party to indemnify the risks. Sri.Laxman was a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society also and the same is affiliated with 3rd opposite party , the Matsyafed . The deceased sustained grievous injuries due to the accident occurred on 11/7/04 while engaged in fishing on the high seas and succumbed to injuries immediately after the accident. The Kasaragod Police registered a crime. The death was occurred due to the accident arising out of external violent and visible means . The injuries sustained to the deceased was the sole cause of the death. Though a claim was preferred before Ist opposite party on 23/7/04 the same is not so far honored. Both Ist and 3rd opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.1,50,000/- each towards the settlement of insured amount . Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.


 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. According to opposite party No.1, the deceased Laxmanan was a member of Ist opposite party Board. But Opposite party No.1 has not collected any premium. However Ist opposite party paid premium to 2nd opposite party to cover the risk upto 1,00,000/-only and not for Rs.1,50,000/- as alleged in the claim papers. Ist opposite party forwarded it to 2nd opposite party with necessary recommendations and enquiry report. The liability to pay the sum insured as per JPA policy is with the 2nd opposite party. Since the Ist opposite party has taken all steps to settle the claim with 2nd opposite party . There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and complainants are not entitled for any relief from Ist opposite party.

 3. According to opposite party No.2 deceased Laxmanan was a member of Fisheries office Kizhur and also a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fisherman Development Welfare Co-op society. But the averment that opposite party No.2 has collected subscriptions amount for the risk covering out of accident death undertaken to cover any risk covering out of any accident is denied. The policy is covering only the accidents occurring during the course of their employment in the sea. The complainant must prove that the injuries were sustained to the deceased Laxmanan during the course of his employment in the sea. They must also prove that the injuries were sustained in the course of employment . No sufficient documents were produced by the legal heirs to prove their claim. The scheme for insurance to the fisherman covering their accident risks was introduced by 2nd opposite party and United India Insurance Company jointly and the claim is to be disbursed by both of them jointly. The claim application submitted by the complainants were forwarded to the United India Insurance Company, the same was rejected since it was not sufficiently proved. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Opposite party No.3 the Matsyafed appeared and filed their version. According to them, the deceased fisherman Laxmanan was a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society (FDWCS). The Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme 2004-05 was implemented as a insurance scheme through M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd for the fisherman who are the members of FDWCS affiliated to Matsyafed. 3rd opposite party is acting as a facilitator to furnish the required details to the Insurance company. As per this scheme a member fisherman has to remit Rs.50/- per year as premium and the dependants will get Rs.1.5lakhs as compensation for the death of the insured person in any accident. But the deceased fisherman Laxmanan had not remitted the annual premium of Rs.50/- to Matsyafed through the concerned FDWCS Ltd and therefore he has not enrolled in the Insurance scheme 2004-05. As he was enrolled in the scheme, neither he nor his dependants are entitled for any benefits. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.


 5. Ist complainant Smt.Shyamala , the wife of deceased fisherman Laxmanan filed affidavit repeating what is stated in the complaint. Exts.A1 to A8 marked. Opposite parties Nos.1&3 have not adduced any oral evidence. No affidavit is also filed. For opposite party No.2 V. Manivarnanan, the District Insurance Officer,Kasaragod filed affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard.


 6. The contention of the opposite party No.2 is that complainant failed to substantiate the fact that the injuries were sustained to the deceased during the course of his employment with documentary and oral evidence is not sustainable in view of Ext.A1, FIR lodged before the Bekal Police station. In the FIR, one Krishnan a fisherman has stated that the death of the deceased fisherman occurred when they were going for fishing . Ext.A2 is the Inquest Report about the deceased Laxmanan. Ext.A3 is the copy of certificate of Death of Lakshmanan issued from Registrar of death& birth Kasaragod Muncipality. Ext.A4 is the postmortem certificate issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital ,Kasaragod. In Ext.A4, the reason for death is shown as intracranial hemorrhage. This postmortem finding corroborates with the FIS that deceased Laxmanan was fell into the boat when boat was getting down from a high wave and that caused the death of the fisherman. There is no reason to disbelieve the said documents.


 Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held in the said decision reported in 1997(1)KLJ 369 as follows:
The courts have treated certified copies of the FIR as public documents and thereby not requiring formal proof in regard thereto. Once the FIR is a public document, tender of a certified copy thereof satisfied the test of proof in regard thereto and what is more important in the context is that the concerned satisfaction is with regard to the contents thereof in view of the provisions of section 77 of the Evidence Act, Reference to the statutory provisions of Sec.80 would show that the presumption is referable to the document being genuine, to any statement in regard thereto having been made by the person signing it to be true and further that such a statement has been duly taken and recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. …..

In the light of the above there is no further proof is necessary to prove the contents of Ext.A1, FIR and it can be concluded that the death of Laxmanan was occurred during the course of employment by external and visible means.


 7. The further contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the scheme for insurance to the fisherman covering their accident risks was introduced by 2nd opposite party and United Insurance Co. jointly. But Ext.B3 is the copy of the Group Personal Accident policy No. KSID/GPA/4226/04 for the period 1/12/03 to 30/11/04. The said policy is covering 263338 fisherman and allied workers. The premium is paid by opposite parties Nos.1&2. The United India Insurance Co.Ltd is nowhere in the picture. Hence the contention that it is the United India Insurance Co. Ltd who rejected the claim is not sustainable. Hence opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the capital sum as mentioned in the policy.


 8. The 3rd opposite party, Matsyafed took a contention that the deceased Laxmanan was not remitted the annual premium of Rs.50/- to Matsyafed through the concerned FDWC S and so he was not enrolled in the Insurance scheme 2004-05.


 9. The complainant has not produced any document to show that the deceased had remitted the annual premium for the year 2004-05. So as to get the insurance benefits as per the scheme facilitated by opposite party No.3. Hence opposite party No.3 is not liable to pay the insured amount to complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @9% from the date of death ie 11/7/04 till date of payment . opposite parties 1&2 severally directed to pay Rs.1500/- each towards the cost of these proceedings to the complainant. Opposite party.No.3 Matsyafed is exonerated from the liabilities. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.