DISTRICT COLLECTOR vs A.RAJANGAM

THESE two appeals arise out of one order of the District Forum in Original Petition No. 475/93. Both the appeals have been filed by the two opposite parties against whom an award has been passed. By this one order both the appeals can be disposed of.

THE petitioner is one Rajangam. According to the complainant his father Ayyasamy took a Group Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- sponsored by the 2nd opposite party through the first opposite party and he was paying the policy premium regularly through the Village Administrative Officer of the first opposite party. While so, Ayyasamy died on 28.4.86 leaving behind the complainant as his only heir. THE complainant made a demand for the payment of the policy amount. It was refused by the 1st opposite party namely the District Collector, Trichy, stating that he is not entitled to receive the amount. Before the District Forum, the 1st opposite party has not filed any counter, whereas the 2nd opposite party Insurance Company has filed one contending that with effect from 31.3.89 all the papers relating to the said scheme have been handed over to the 1st opposite party as per orders of the Government and the scheme also has been discontinued and the District Collector was authorised to settle the claims in this respect and as such the 2nd opposite party has nothing to do with this claim, and therefore they are not liable to pay any amount as claimed. It appears that though no counter has been filed by the 1st opposite party the Collector, during the enquiry the Government Pleader appeared and advanced arguments contending that the Collector is not liable.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence came to the conclusion that it is undeniable that the complainant is the heir of the said Ayyasamy and he is entitled to make a claim for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. As regards the question as to who is liable to pay, it held that may be there was an arrangement between the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party under which the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company is absolved from liability, but such an arrangement cannot be held against the complainant and therefore both the opposite parties are liable to pay the amount. Thus holding it directed both the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. As against this as said above the two appeals have been filed by the 2 opposite parties.

WHEN the appeals were taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the appellant/1st opposite party in A.P. 1334/95. The Counsel for the appellant/ 2nd opposite party in A.P. 1512/95 argued the matter. We also heard the Counsel for the respondent/complainant. The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant made a submission that as far as the 2nd opposite party-Insurance Company is concerned they are not liable but certainly the 1st opposite party the Collector is liable to pay the insurance amount. As stated above, there is no representation for the 1st opposite party/appellant in A.P. 1334/95, and no counter has been filed by the 1st opposite party in the District Forum also. The learned District Forum has also observed that the opposite party while stating that he is not liable to pay the amount, he has not given any reason whatsoever for that. That being the case, we are not able to find that the order of the District Forum is erroneous as regards the 1st opposite party. Considering this we allow the Appeal No. 1512/95 filed by the 2nd opposite party and dismiss Appeal No. 1334/95 filed by the 1st opposite party. The result is that the 1st opposite party is liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% from 28.4.86 till the date of realisation and the costs of Rs. 500/- awarded by the District Forum shall be payable by the 1st opposite party. In these appeals there will be no order as to costs. Appeal 1512/95 allowed. Appeal 1334/95 dismissed.