Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.       The learned counsel for the first and second respondents/complainants submitted that the deceased was a fisherman and he was performing the duty of a poojari temporarily as a service without any remuneration for 3 days in a week as a substitute of the regular poojari of the temple. He was a bonafide fisherman and was a member of the welfare society who has taken the policy for the benefit of its members. He had paid the required premium of Rs.178/-(Rupees One Hundred and Seventy Eight) on 27.03.2017 and is covered under the insurance policy as Sl. No.639. An agreement was executed between the 3rd opposite party and the 4th opposite party before issuing the policy. It was intended to cover the accidental death of the members of Fisherman Welfare Societies all over Kerala under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme as per the enrolment list submitted by Matsyafed.  Accordingly, the deceased was covered for accidents under the Group Personal Accident policy issued by the appellants. The claim is genuine and the appellants have arbitrarily repudiated the claim.  Hence the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs.

6.       We have considered the submissions on both sides and examined the records. The District Commission has elaborately discussed various aspects of the case with the evidence available on record. Matsyafed is a federation of cooperative societies formed for the welfare of the fishermen. It is not disputed that an agreement (Exhibit A3) was executed between the second opposite party, District Manager, Matsyafed and the fourth opposite party insurer which provides accidental death coverage to the fishermen included in the schedule attached to the policy for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Thus, the beneficiary of the group insurance is the members enrolled by remitting prescribed premium as per the enrolment list submitted by Matsyafed.

7.       An important point in this case is whether the deceased can be considered as a fisherman as per the agreement between Matsyafed and the insurance company. He was a member of the fishermen co-operative Society and he has paid the required premium for joining the group personal accident insurance policy and he was included as Sl. No.639 in the policy schedule. Payment of the premium by the deceased is proved by receipt No 9539 dated 27.03.2017 (Exhibit A4) and his accidental death is proved by FIR (Exhibit A1) and postmortem certificate (Exhibit A2). The fourth and fifth respondents filed their version endorsing the claim of the complainants/1st and 2nd respondents. The job of a fisherman is not like a permanent job where he may not be allowed to work elsewhere when he is otherwise free. There is nothing in evidence to prove that the deceased was not a fisherman. If at all he was working as a poojari during his spare time, the insurance company is not absolved from their liability.