Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT               The appellants are the 3rd opposite party/Insurance company in OP.151/02 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to pay the assured sum of  Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of complaint.     The 2nd opposite party/Matsyafed has been permitted to realize Rs.20000/- paid to the 1st complainant as and when the insurer pays the amount.

          2. the case of the complainants who are the legal heirs/wife and children of the deceased, M.N.Thankappan a fisherman by profession is that his life was covered by 2 insurance policies with the 3rd opposite party/appellant. As per the personal accident insurance policy the coverage was Rs.1,00,000/- and as per Janatha Accident Insurance policy the coverage was Rs.1,50,000/-.  The deceased died while fishing. The claim was rejected on the ground that the death was not accidental and that it was  due to myocardial infraction which is not correct.

          3. The 2nd opposite party/Matsyafed has filed version mentioning that the deceased was a member of Keecheri Inland fishermen Development co-operative Society Ltd. and that Matsyafed had availed an insurance scheme for fishermen who are members of the society.  As per the scheme a member fishermen has to remit Rs.15/- as yearly premium and the sum assured  is Rs.1.5 lakhs.

          4. In the version filed by the 3rd opposite party insurer the repudiation is justified on the ground that the death was due to myocardial infraction and not due to accident. The existence of the janatha personal accident policy is denied.

          5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PWs 1 and 2; Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B10.

          6.We find that Ext.B8 and B9 produced by the opposite parties would show that the fishermen were covered by 2 policies - one for Rs.1,00,000/- and the other for Rs.1,50,000/-.  Ext.B8 policy for 1,00,000/- is admitted, Ext.B9 is disputed on the ground there is nothing to show that the deceased had remitted premium at the rate of Rs.15/-.  The 2nd opposite party/Matsyafed has supported the case of the complainants.  It can be seen from the schedule attached to Ext.B9 that the coverage is for Fishermen who are various affiliated societies of the apex body of  Matsyafed provided that such members are  on the rolls of the society.  As noted by the Forum Ext.B5 certificate issued by the Secretary of the society would show that the deceased was a member of the society.  The  premium in bulk has been remitted which is evident from Ext.B3,B6 and B10.  Ext.B7 is the admission register of the society wherein the register number of the deceased as to his membership is 75/96.  The appellants/insurer also could not produce anything to show that such and such persons alone had paid the premium.  In the circumstances we find that the conclusion of the Forum that the complainant was covered by the Janatha Accident Insurance policy for Rs.1,50,000/- do not call for interference.