Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: matsyafed in Moothodi Ayathar, S/O Madhavan, vs 1. The Commissioner, on 30 April, 2014Matching Fragments
Moothodi Ayathar, S/o Madhavan, Kizhur Kadappuram, Chandragiri.P.O : APPELLANT Kasaragod.
(By Adv: Sri.G.S.Kalkura) Vs
1. The Commissioner, The Kerala Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board, H.O. Thrissur-2.
2. The Managing Director, Matsyafed, Kuravankonam, TVPM.
(R2 by Adv: Sri.Subair Kunju)
3. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Elizabeth Alexander Memorial Buildings, : RESPONDENTS Marine Drive, Cochin-3.
2. The case of the complainants as stated in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
Complainants are the parents and dependants of one Kishore who died on February 14, 2007 at about 18.16 hours in a railway accident. The deceased was a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fishermen Welfare Board which is affiliated with the opposite party No.1, the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board with membership No.1000. He was also a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Matsya Thozhilali Kshema Vikasana Sahakarana Sangham affiliated with opposite party No.2, Matsyafed with membership No.1518. The death of Kishore was due to accident caused by external violent means and that therefore opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimants by paying Rs.1,50,000/- each. Complainants submitted necessary claim for claiming benefits under the policy issued by opposite parties 3 and 4 to opposite party 1 and 2 respectively. They repudiated the claim on August 14, 2007. Therefore claiming that amount and compensation complainant filed the complaint.
3. First opposite party is Commissioner, Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, Thrissur. He in his version contended that the death of Kishore was due to accident which comes within the purview of the policy issued by the opposite party No.4, Kerala State Insurance Department.
4. Second opposite party, the Managing Director, Matsyafed, Kuravankonam, Thiruvananthapuram in his version admitted the policy but contended that the 3rd opposite party, Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of complainants on the ground that the death of Kishore does not come under the purview of the policy and that therefore there is no deficiency of service on his part.