Mrs. M. Poongodi,
W/o. Late.Mr.K. Mariappan, complainant
No.12 Velliyar street,
Thirumalai Naickan Pudhukkudi,
Puliyankudi – 627 855.
Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

- Vs -

The Secretary,
Tamilnadu Manual Workers, opposite party
Social security & Welfare Board,
No.8, Valluvarkottam High Road,
ChetpetBridge (Downside),
Chennai – 600 034.

Date of Complaint 15.11.2005

M/s. R. Dhanalakshmi : Counsel for the complainant

Mr. S.Stanley John : Counsel for the opposite party

O R D E R

THIRU. P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

The husband of the complainant one Mr. Mariappan was employed as manual worker and the member of the opposite party welfare board and was paying annual subscription regularly. While unloading the goods, he died due to accident on 24.03.2001. The complainant being the legal heir of the deceased Mariappan preferred a claim with the Opposite party for the amount insured. But, the Opposite party did not pay the policy amount to the complainant. Hence, she filed this complaint claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under the accident benefit scheme with interest, Rs.2000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.


2. The opposite party filed version and contended inter alia that according to the complainant, the accident occurred on 18.03.2001 but the complainant had died on 24.03.2001. There was correspondence between the complainant and the Opposite party till 28.12.2001. Even assuming that the accident took place on28.12.2001, the complaint ought to have filed on or before 28.12.2003. But the complainant filed this complaint only on 11.08.2005. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation. The Government of Tamilnadu by order dated 23.02.2001 had created Group Personal Accident Relief. The complainant had approached the opposite party for the compensation for death of her husband. The Insurance Company had also rejected the claim of the complainant on 11.04.2002 on the ground that the accident occurred prior to the commencement of the policy and that the member had died prior to the commencement of the policy. Hence, the opposite party is no way connected in the payment of the compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


3. Proof affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite party. Exhibits A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exs B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party.


4 The points that arise for consideration are;-
1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties?
3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?


5. Points No.1& 2: The husband of the complainant who was a labour had registered with the Opposite party on 05.02.2000 as a member of the society. He met with an accident on 18.02.2001 and succumbed to injuries on 24.03.2001. The complainant being the wife of the deceased claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as per the accident policy claim. She filed Exs. A1 to A14, she preferred claim with the opposite party. But, the Opposite party by letter dated 22.11.2001 requested the complainant to furnish legal heir certificate and identity card. The complainant furnished the same. Ex. A10 is the copy of the pass book to show that the deceased had paid subscription with the opposite party to become a member. The claim was referred by the Opposite party to the Insurance Company and the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Government order created Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy scheme was created only on 22.03.2001. Since the death took place on 24.03.2001, the policy is not applicable to the complainant. The opposite party would submit that this complaint is barred by limitation. As seen from the records, the cause of action is a continuing one and the complainant has also issued a notice to the Opposite party on 05.10.2004 and as such the complaint is not barred by limitation. The opposite party is a welfare board registered manual worker as members paying compensation for educational institution, Marriage Expenses, Delivery expenses, etc., they are service provider. Admittedly, the complainant became a member of the opposite party’s Association on 15.02.2000 and paid registration fees. Pursuant to the orders of the Government dated 22.03.2001, Group Personal Accident Relief Scheme was introduced with the insurance company. The claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that the claim came into force only on 22.03.2001. But the accident took place on 18.03.2001. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to the amount. The contention of the opposite party is rejected because the complainant was a member of the opposite party welfare board from 2000 onwards and that the accident took place on 18.03.2001 the complainant’s husband died on 24.03.2001. Hence, the complainant is entitled to the Accident policy amount from the opposite party. The non-payment of the amount amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.


6. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation under accident benefit scheme and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rte of 9% per annum till the date of payment.