IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Fisherman - 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.
(2) Written Statement - Consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.

ORDER

Radhakrishnan K.R., Member—This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order in C.C.No.213/2018 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 31.03.2021, the District Commission allowed the complaint on the following terms: “Exhibit A6 repudiation letter dated 24.07.2017 stands set aside and the 4th opposite party is directed to reconsider the claim lodged by the complainants and sanctioned the insurance claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and funeral expenses to the tune of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) within forty five days from the date of the order. The 4th opposite party was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased Vishnu within forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 4th opposite party is further directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased Vishnu. Opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to render necessary assistance for the speedy disposal of the claim by the 4th opposite party, collect the policy amount, funeral expenses and costs, handover the same to the legal heirs of the deceased without delay. If the 4th opposite party fails to comply with the directions in the order the legal heirs of the deceased Vishnu are entitled to recover Rs.5,27,500/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred) with interest @9% per annum along with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) from the date of complaint till realisation from the 4th opposite party and its assets”. The appeal is filed by the 4th Opposite party insurer.

2. The case of the complainants in brief is as follows: The complaint is filed by the parents of the deceased Vishnu who died in a road traffic accident on 03.06.2017. He was a fisherman and also was working as a temporary priest in a temple. The deceased was a member of the “Vellanathuruth – Pandarathuruth Matsya Thozhilali Vikasana Kshema Sahakarana Sangham Ltd.No.F.Q.13, bearing membership No.MNC-925. On 27.03.2017 he remitted Rs 178/- towards membership fees and premium for insurance under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme. A policy bearing No.270202/42/17/8200000006 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 was issued by the 4th opposite party. It was taken in the name of first opposite party through second and third opposite parties for the benefit of its members. Complainant’s son passed away in the road traffic accident on 03.06.2017. They submitted the required documents to the 4th opposite party through other opposite parties to get the insurance claim. They repudiated the claim vide their letter dated 24.07.2017 on the ground that the deceased was not covered under the policy as it was issued to cover bonafide fishermen only. It was further stated that the deceased was a poojari of a temple for last two years and he was not a member of the Fisherman Welfare Fund Board. According to the complainants the deceased Vishnu was a fisherman and was a member of the 1st opposite party society and he was performing the duty of a poojari temporarily, as a service without any remuneration for three days in a week as a substitute of the regular poojari of the temple. He was a member of the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme and his death is covered by the policy issued by the 4th opposite party as per the terms and conditions stipulated in it. So the claim of the complainants are genuine and they are entitled to get all the benefits under the Insurance Policy from the 4th opposite party. Hence the complainants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Vishnu, filed the complaint before the District Commission for getting the insurance claim with compensation and costs.

3. The first complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. He was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A7 were