Before the District Consumer Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Membe
Wednesday the 30 day of June, 2004
C.D.No.80/2002
P. Madduleti,
S/o. P.Hussainamma,
Public Health Worker,
H.No. 64-58-Es,
Nagappa Street,Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri S.Iqbal Ahmed
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Kurnool Municipal Corporation,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented
by his counsel Sri D.Yella Reddy.
2. The Divisional Manager,
L.I.C. of India,
Cuddapah Division,
Cuddapah. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented
by his Counsel Sri M.L.Srinivasa
Reddy.
CD. No. 80/2002
(As per Smt C.Preethi Member )
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12,13 & 14 of C.P Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay RS.10, 000/- insured amount under G.S.L.I scheme of 1986 with 12% interest per annum from the date of death of the deceased RS. 5,000/- as compensation and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the unverified complaint of the complainant is that the complainant’s mother P. Hussainamma was an employee of opposite party No.1, working as a Public Health Worker died on 13.5.1993 in service, she contributed RS. 10/- per month from her salary and the opposite party No.1 remitted towards Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme of 1986, of the opposite party No.2. After the death of the complainant’s mother, the complainant submitted necessary particulars to the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party No.1 did not furnish the said particulars to the opposite party No.2 for granting of insurance amount to the complainant. But inspite of submitting necessary certificates to the opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 did not forwarded the claim of the complainant to the opposite party No.2. Hence, the act opposite parties in not settling the claim of complainant is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. In substantiating its case the complainant filed documents marked as Ex.A1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case besides to the above documents, the complainant filed his sworn-affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments as evidence.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant, the opposite parties appeared through its standing counsels and filed separate written versions (counter) denying the complaint as not maintainable either in Law or on facts.
- The opposite party No.1 in its written version submits that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not issued any statutory notice as contemplated under section 685 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, before filling this complaint and admits that the deceased P. Hussainamma was its employee and working as a Public Health Worker and died on 13.5.1993 in service, and RS.10/- was deducted from her salary and paid to opposite party No.2 under Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme of the opposite party No.2.
- It further submits that the opposite party No.1 paid premiums after deducting the premium amount from its employees to the opposite party No.2 as and when requested by the opposite party No.2. Hence it is the opposite party No.2 who has to pay the insured amount to the complainant as the opposite party No.1 paid premium with the interest and the master policy was fairly reinstated with retrospective effect and it is obligatory on the opposite party No.2 to admit the claim. The opposite party No.2 never cancelled the policy nor the policy was in lapsed condition. It further says it is forwarding the claim of the complainant to the opposite party No.2 for settlement, hence it is for the opposite party No.2 to pay the said insured amount to the complainant, therefore there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.1 and the complainant has to take appropriate steps against opposite party No.2 only and seeks for the dismissal of complaint against the opposite party No.1 with costs.
- The opposite party No.2 admits in its written version that the deceased P.Hussanamma was an employee of opposite party No1, working as Public Health Worker and she was a member of GSLI scheme of opposite party No.2, subscribing monthly premium of RS.10/- from her salary to the said scheme through the drawing office i.e opposite party No.1. It also submits that the opposite party No.2 did not receive claim form from the opposite party No.1, therefore opposite party No.2 could not process the claim of the complainant. As per the GSLI scheme rules, when ever any member dies, the master policy holder has to inform the same in claim form ‘B’ along with original death certificate and remittance particulars so as to enable the opposite party No.2 to settle the claim of the complainant but the opposite party No.1 did not forwarded the claim of the complainant. In the absence of any claim form from opposite party No.1 the opposite party No.2 could not settle the claim of the complainant and there arises no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.2 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint.
8. In substantiation of its case the opposite party No.1 filed documents marked as Ex B.1 to B.4 for appreciation in this case, beside to its sworn affidavit as evidence and the opposite party No.2 did not file any documents.
- Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite party:-
- The complainant alleges the opposite party No.1 did not forward the claim of the complainant to the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 also
alleges the opposite party No.1 did not forward the claim of the but the opposite partyNo.1 in its written version in para 13 submits that it is forwarding the claim of the complainant.
- There is no dispute about the mother of the complainant being an employee in the Kurnool Municipal Corporation and she died on 13.5.1993. There is no dispute that she was a member in the scheme, while being a member she contributed RS.10/- P.M towards G.S.L.I.S of 1986.
- The Ex B.1 attested xerox copy dated Nil/7/1994 from the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2 shows that a cheque for RS.42, 540/- bearing No. 337939 dt 26.4.1994 towards subscription of G.S.L.I.S of Public Health and non Public Health Workers for a period from 6/93 to 2/94 was sent for acknowledging the receipt of the cheque and stamped receipts. The opposite party No.2 returned the said cheque dt 26.4.1994 on the ground that the cheque was valid only up to 26.7.1994 as the period of validity of the cheque was only for 3 months. Therefore the opposite party No.1 was called up on to send D.D immediately as the scheme already in lapsed condition. The opposite party No.1 vide Ex B.2 enclosed a reevaluated cheque bearing No. 337937 dt 17.9.1994 for RS.42, 640/- towards subscription under G.S.L.I.S.
13. The Ex B.3 is the letter addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1, it acknowledges the receipt of cheque No. 183398 dt 30.6.1993 for RS.1,54,650/- towards subscription of G.S.L.I.S for the period 2/91 to 5/93 along with interest.
- The Ex B.4 is letter addressed by opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2, it was informed by opposite party No.1 that in respect of master policy No. 40267, remittance particulars for the period from Nov, 1986 to January 1991 was sent to opposite party No.2 through the DD bearing No.246187 dt 23.4.1993 for RS.1,87,237/- and the remittance particulars of Public Health and Non- Public Health workers for the period of form 2/91 to 3/97 are furnished.
- The point for consideration is whether the opposite party No.2 is justified in denying its liability for payment of the insurance amount ofRS.10, 000/- on the ground that late P.Hussanamma died on 13.5.1993, where as the master policy holder gsent by DD on 30.6.1993 for RS.1,54,650/- for the period from 2/91 to 5/93, the delay on the part of the master policy holder cannot be a ground to exonerate opposite party No.2 from paying the insurance amount of RS.10,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. As per the decision of Supreme Court between Delhi Electricity Supply Under taking Vs Shanti Devi and another reported in AIR, 2000, SC Pg 43, wherein an identical question was considered by their lord ship who answered it, in favour of the claimant, who is the widow of deceased employee of D.E.S.U who took out an LIC policy for RS. 50,000/- which was to commence from, January 1992 under salary saving scheme of LIC. He paid premium of RS.639/- for two months to the LIC, premium for third month was payable by March, 25, 1992, premium for subsequent months was deducted by DESU from the salary of the deceased but not remitted to LIC. In the meantime the husband of the complainant died in August 1992.
16. In the said case, it was categorically held that in case of default of an employer in remitting the premium of an employee concerned to the LIC under the scheme, the LIC is liable to pay the policy amount.
17. The learned counsel for opposite party No.2 tried to distinguish the ratio of the above decision on the ground that in that case it related to salary saving scheme where as in the case on hand it was Group Saving Linked Insurance scheme. It is to be noted that the deceased was working as public health worker in the place of opposite party No.1 died on 13.5.1993 and she was contributing RS.10/- per month to cover the insurance of RS.10.000/- payable in the event of death and thereon to retirement of employees. Except the difference in the nomenclature of the scheme, scope of the scheme, manner of the deduction of premium from the salary every month, there is no difference. There being so, the submissions made by the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 cannot be accepted on. If the stand of the opposite party No.2 is accepted the public will loose confidence in their employer i.e master policy holders as well as the Insurance Company’s because insurance coverage is intended for the benefit of the deceased in case of death or retirement. Hence the stand of opposite party No.2 is denied.
- Hence in the circumstances discussed above and in the light of the above decision of Supreme Court, even though the employer defaulted in payment of premiums of its employees after deducting the premium from their salaries and the LIC accepting the premiums belated with interest, then the master policy is reinstated with retrospective effect, therefore the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the insured amount on submitting of claim form by opposite party No.1.
- In the result, the complaint is allowed, in view of the contentions of the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party No.1 has not submitted claim form for any settlement and the opposite party No.2 counsel exhibited his readiness for settlement if any claim is submitted by opposite party No.1, in supra circumstances the opposite party No.1 is directed to submit the claim form within a month from the receipt of this order, in compliance of rules and regulations governing it and there on the opposite party No.2 shall adjudicate the claim and the complaint is ordered accordingly and in the said circumstances each party to bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 30th day of June, 2004.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
