Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Honble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President;
Thiru Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy & Dr. (Tmt.) Angel Arulraj, Members
K. SUBRAMANIA MUDALIAR—Appellant
versus
THE DIRECTOR, HANDLOOM AND CLOTHS & ORS.—Respondents
A.P. No. 386 of 1996—Decided on 28.1.1997

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondents:Thiru R. Kannan & Thiru V. Jambunathan, Advocates.

The entitlement to claim under an insurance scheme can be affected by the member's default in premium payments and participation in the society's transactions.

Headnote:
Insurance Scheme - Membership Termination - Entitlement to Claim
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, father of a deceased member of a weavers society, claimed the insurance amount and cooperative tax after his daughter's death. The society officers contended that the daughter ceased to be a member and did not contribute to the insurance premiums.
Finding of the Court:

The District Forum held that the appellant cannot maintain the claim based on the rule stating that a subscriber in default for more than six months can be removed from the insurance scheme. The court found no acceptable reason to overturn the District Forum's decision and upheld it.
Issues: Entitlement to insurance amount and cooperative tax after the death of a weavers society member.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule No. 10(1)(a) of the Savings and Security Scheme, which allows the removal of a member from the insurance scheme if in default for more than six months.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

ORDER

Mr. Justice E.J. Bellie, President—When the matter was called there was no representation for the appellant-party in person. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. His daughter was a member of the Kalipatty Weavers Society from 15.11.75 of which the opposite parties 1 and 2 are officers. She became a member of Group Insurance scheme launched by the third opposite party. She died on 7.1.92. The complainant claimed the insurance amount of Rs. 15,000/- stating that he is the only heir of his deceased daughter. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as Cooperative tax.

2. The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not entitled to any of these amounts since his daughter ceased to be a member of the Society and she did not make the premia contribution for the insurance for 1½ years. It is not in dispute that the complainant's daughter failed to contribute the premia for the insurance. It is also not in dispute that she did not participate in the transaction of the Society for six months. According to the opposite parties, in these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any amount claimed by him.

3. The District Forum relying on Rule No. 10(1)(a) of the Savings and Security Scheme, held that the complainant cannot maintain the claim. This rule states that if a subscriber is in default in payment of his subscription for a continuous period exceeding six months then, the Board can remove the member from participating in the insurance Scheme. Considering these circumstances, the District Forum has held that the complainant is not en titled for the amount prayed for.

4. Now, we find that there is no acceptable reason given in the Grounds of Appeal as to how the order of the District Forum is not correct or erroneous. In our view, the order of the District Forum has to be upheld as a correct one. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis