IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 29^th day of December, 2008

Filed on 03.11.04

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.251/04

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Smt.Thresiamma,                                        1.         State of Kerala

W/o Abraham, Vilanjoor House,                             Represented by Chief Secretary,,

Thathampally.P.O,                                      Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram.

Alappuzha – 688 013.                                                                                                                 (By Adv.T.G.Sanalkumar)                     2.         Excise Inspector,

                                                                              Excise Range Office,

                                                                              Vandiperiyar, Idukki.

                                                                  3.         Excise Inspector,

                                                                              Excise Range Office,

                                                                              Kuttanad, Alappuzha.

                                                                  4.         Life Insurance Corporation of India,

                                                                              Divisional Office, Kottayam.

                                                                              Represented by its Divisional Manager.

                                                                              (By Adv.S.Devalal)

                            O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant in short as follows: - The complainant is the mother and the nominee of late Joseph Abraham. He was working as the excise guard of the Excise Range Office. Late Joseph Abraham was the holder of the death benefit policy for an amount of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lac only) bearing No.392290432 issued by the 4^th opposite party under 'Salary Saving Scheme' for government servants. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were the salary disbursing officers of the incumbent on diverse occasions. As per the aforesaid insurance, the disbursing officers are to deduct the premium of the policy from the salary of the insured and to remit the same with the 4^th opposite party. As such, the pass book was entrusted with the concerned drawing officers. In the said manner, the premium amounts were duly remitted with the opposite party since 11/1994 to 6/2003. Thereafter, the insured went on medical leave from 3^rd July 2003 to 31^st October 2003. Again the complainant was constrained to take leave from 6^th November 2003 to 22^nd November 2003. Meanwhile, the insured was transferred from Vandiperiyar range office to Kuttanadu range office on 10^th November 2003. The 2^nd opposite party issued the last pay certificate on 18^th December 2003 to the 3^rd opposite party. The incumbent had to avail leave yet again upon being hospitalized in PVS, Medical Centre, Kochi. While in hospital, the insured was over again transferred on 14^th January 2004 to Alappuzha Range Office. Eventually on 9^th March 2004, the insured succumbed to his annoying ailment. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a claim for the insured amount with the 4^th opposite party. The said opposite party issued a discharge form agreeing to pay only an amount of Rs.11970/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred seventy only) to the complainant, for non payment of the premium, the policy fell lapsed. The amount Rs.l1970/-(Rupees eleven thousand nine hundred seventy only) was the actual paid up value of the said policy. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties were liable to draw and disburse the salary of the deceased, and to remit the premium of the policy with the 4^th opposite party at appropriate time. The 4^th opposite party is responsible to intimate to the insured as to the non payment of the premium by the other opposite parties. The service of all the opposite parties is deficient. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On serving notice, the opposite parties turned up. The 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties filed joint versions. The 3^rd and the 4^th opposite parties filed their own separate versions. The first two opposite parties' contention is that while the insured was on leave, on 24^th November 2003, he was transferred from Vandiperiyar to Kuttanadu Excise Range office.  Consequently, the last pay certificate, service book and leave sanction orders were forwarded to Kuttanadu Range office. The 2^nd opposite party joined as Excise Inspector, Vandiperiyar Range only on 29^th January 2004. When the 2^nd opposite party assumed charge as the Excise Inspector, Vandieriyar, the service particulars of the incumbent was previously sent to the Kuttanadu Range office. With the result, the complainant has no cause of action against the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties, the said opposite parties assert. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, they argue.

2. The 3^rd opposite party contends that the leave of the deceased from 28^th November 2003 to 8^th March 2004 was sanctioned by the 3^rd opposite party's office on 25^th August 2004. With the result, the Excise Inspector, Alappuzha on 13^th September 2004 drew the salary and other related allowances of the incumbent for the period from 1^st July 2003 to 8^th March 2004 from sub treasury, Alappuzha. Thus the entire dues stand in the name of the deceased was cleared off. As such, the Excise Inspector, Alappuzha Range, remitted the premium dues of the said LIC policy for a period of 8 months from 7/2003 to 2/2004 with the sub treasury, Alappuzha. While the deceased was on leave, the legal heirs of the deceased never enquired about the LIC premium or other subscriptions during the said period. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

3. The 4^th opposite party is contention is that the policy was lapsed due to the non payment of the premium. The 4^th opposite party is not under obligation to intimate the insured with regard to the non payment of the concerned premium installments. The insured was well aware of the fact that the premium amount was not being remitted with the 4^th opposite party. As such it was the duty of the insured to ensure the payments of the premium amount duly and promptly even from his own pocket, the opposite party contends. The non-payment of the premium resulted in the policy being lapsed. For the said reason, the policy benefits of the deceased were denied to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any relief from the 4^th opposite party. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the 4^th opposite party, the 4^th opposite party asserts.

4. The complainant evidence consists of the oral testimony of the complainant himself, and the documents Exbts Al to A6 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, The Kuttanadu Range Officer of Excise was examined as Rw1, The Alappuzha Range Officer was examined as Rw2, and The Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as Rw3, and the documents Exbts Bl, B2 and B2(a) were marked.

5. We meticulously perused the materials put on record by the parties. Concededly, the deceased was insured with the 4^th opposite party. As per the specifications with regard to the program of the policy it was the onerous duty of the concerned drawing officers to draw the salary, deduct the premium of the policy, before disbursing his salary to the deceased. In the instant case, it appears that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties line up lame excuses for their serious error of non-remittance of the premium of the policy of the deceased. The 2^nd and the 3^rd opposite parties had an onerous duty to draw the salary, deduct the premium and remit the same with the 4^th opposite party. They cannot be heard of marshalling one reason or other for their dereliction of the bounden duty. The 2^nd opposite party's contention is that when the 2^nd opposite party assumed the charge of the excise inspector viz. the charge of the drawing officer the service particulars of the deceased were already sent to Kuttanadu range office. With the result he was helpless and could do nothing with the remitting of the premium with the 4^th opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party specifically contends that the entire arrears as to the premium of the policy were remitted with the 4^th opposite party. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to the policy amount.

Taking into the entire circumstance of the instant case, we direct the 4^th opposite party to pay policy amount of Rs.l00000/-(Rupees one lac only) with 12% interest per annum to the complainant. If the premium still lays arrears the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall take steps to see that the arrears of the premium are remitted, and in that event the 4^th opposite party shall release the claim amount forth with. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2000/­-(Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the said order within 45 days of receipt of this order.

In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of December, 2008

.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi           

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Jacob, S/o Abraham(Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The Last Pay Certificate

Ext. A2            -           Proceedings of the Asst. Excise Commissioner, Idukki dated, 17.11.2003

Ext. A3            -           Proceedings of the Asst. Excise Commissioner, Idukki dated, 17.11.2003

Ext. A4            -           Letter from the Excise Inspector, Alappuzha Range

Ext. A5            -           Certificate issued by the Excise Inspector, Alappuzha range         

Ext. A6            -           Policy clause 22 under salary deducting scheme (Policy No.392290432)                

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

RW1                -           P.Sunilkumar(Witness)

RW2                -           Muhammed Newman(Witness)

RW3                -           P.D.Pushpangathan(Witness)

Ext. B1            -           Life Insurance Corporation of India – Bima Kiran Policy

Ext. B2            -           The True copy of the pass book

Ext. B2(a)        -           Clause for payment of monthly premium under Salary Savings Scheme

(Policy No.392290432)            

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-