Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/550

BSES RP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAYAWATI & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 Date of Decision:17.03.2015

First Appeal- 550/2010

(Arising out of the order dated 19.05.2010 passed in Complainant Case No. 681/2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II), Delhi)

M/s. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,

Through its Authorised Signatory,

BSES Bhavan, Nehru Place,

New Delhi.

 

                                                                                            ….Appellant

Versus

1. Ms. Dayawati,

Wife of Late Satish Chand,

10229, Gali Gyasi Wali,

Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi.

 

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Through its Senior Branch Manager,

Pension-II, Branch Unit No.312,

_Community Center,

New Friends Colony,

New Delhi.

 

….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act) against impugned order dated 19.05.2010 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II (in short, “the District Forum”) whereby the complaint of respondent No.1/complainant has been allowed and directions have been issued to the appellant to pay Rs.2 lacs as insured amount along with 8% interest to the complainant.  Further directions have been given to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2. The background of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal is as under:

 

A complaint was filed by the respondent No.1 herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum against the predecessor of the appellant i.e. DVB under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that her husband, Late Shri Satish Chand was the employee of DVB and had taken a Life Insurance Policy from respondent No.2 in October, 1997 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh on a monthly premium of Rs.753/-.  Her husband had requested the DVB to pay the premium of the said policy every month to respondent No.2 after deducting the same from his salary.  Accordingly DVB started paying premium of the said policy to respondent No.2.  On 27.02.2000, the husband of respondent No.1 died.  Thereupon respondent No.1 lodged a claim with respondent No.2/LIC with all necessary documents.  Respondent No.2/LIC vide letter dated 21.07.2000 informed the respondent No.1 that nothing was payable as the policy had already lapsed before the death of her husband. The respondent No.1 made a request for reconsideration but the same was declined by respondent No.2/LIC.  Ultimately she had filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking claim of the insurance amount as well as compensation and costs of litigation.

3. The stand of the appellant before the District Forum was that it was only on the request of the husband of respondent No.1 that the premium was being paid to respondent No.2 i.e. LIC after deducting the same from his salary.  There was no obligation on the part of its predecessor i.e. DVB to pay the premium.  It was alleged that the husband of respondent No.1 remained absent from duties from May 1998 to March 1999, due to which he did not draw the salary.  It was alleged that only after receiving leave application from the husband of respondent No.1, the DVB acted in good faith and prepared the salary bill for 8 months i.e. from May 1998 to December 1998 and the premium was deducted and was sent to LIC.  The pay from January 1999 to March 1999 was prepared in April and premium was again deducted.  It was alleged that husband of respondent No.1 again absented from April 1999 to January 2000 without intimation, as such he did not draw the salary.  It was alleged that it was the fault of the husband of respondent No.1 due to which premium could not be deducted and the policy had lapsed and the same was intimated to the deceased during his life time.  The respondent No.2/LIC had also sent the cheque for the lapsed policy to the predecessor of the appellant i.e. DVB and the same was refunded to husband of respondent No.1 on his request.
4. The stand of respondent No.2 i.e. LIC was that the predecessor of appellant i.e. DVB did not pay the premium and policy holder was informed vide letter dated 20.11.99 that the policy was lying lapsed.  He was also informed for revival of the policy but no steps were taken for revival.  The premiums were sent after lapse of the policy and the same were returned back to DVB on 16.03.2000.
5. The aforesaid claim was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 10.09.2003 by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2/LIC.  It was also held that the husband of respondent No.1 had remained absented from May 1998 to December 1998 and  the premium for 8 months i.e. from May 1998 to December 1998 was sent in the year 1999 and the policy had already lapsed. The District Forum further held that the respondent No.2/LIC had intimated the insured vide letter dated 20.11.1999 to contact respondent No.2/LIC.  However, the husband of respondent No.1 did not contact for the revival of the policy and rather wrote to the LIC/respondent No.2 for refund of premium and on his request, a cheque of Rs.6,024/- for the lapsed policy had already been paid by LIC/respondent No.2.
6. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent No.1/complainant before this Commission by filing an appeal bearing No.FA-22/2004 which was disposed of on 24.01.2008 wherein it was held that the contentions raised by the respondent No.1/complainant were not discussed in the order of the District Forum dated 10.09.2003 and accordingly the said order of the District Forum was set aside and the matter was sent back to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh after considering the contentions of respondent No.1/complainant.
7. After remand, the District Forum decided the complaint afresh vide order dated 19.03.2010 holding that there was deficiency on the part of the appellant in not making payment to the respondent No.2/LIC in time and accordingly directed the appellant to pay the amount as has been stated above.
8. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the present appeal is filed.
9. Ld. Counsel for appellant has contended that husband of respondent No.1 had remained absent for a long period due to which salary was drawn late and by the time premium was paid, policy had already lapsed and husband of respondent No.1 took no steps for revival of policy and had rather received amount which was refunded by respondent No.2 for the lapsed policy.  It is contended that impugned order is silent on aforesaid aspects.  It is further contended that certain directions were given by this Commission in its order dated 24.01.2008 while remanding back the case to the District Forum.  It is contended that District Forum without going through the complaint, evidence on record and without discussing the grounds on which the matter had been remanded back has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is liable to make the payment.  It is contended that impugned order is not legally sustainable.
10. On the other hand, Counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that deductions were made every month from the salary of husband of respondent No.1 and there was no fault of the husband of the respondent No.1.
11. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
12. Earlier the District Forum vide order dated 10.09.2003 had passed an order in favour of the appellant/OP and had dismissed the complaint of appellant/respondent.  On an appeal filed by the respondent No.1, this Commission had directed the District Forum to re-decide the matter after considering contentions of the respondent No.1/complainant.  The relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:

“3. Through this appeal the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the District Forum has overlooked the fact that the employer i.e. respondent No.2 had deducted the premium from his salary by way of an arrangement between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and therefore he was not liable for any consequences arising out of non-deposit of the premium by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1.

4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum has overlooked the statement of respondent No.2 i.e. the employer that the deceased insured kept himself absent from duty w.e.f. May 1998 to March 1999 and without taking any action against him respondent No.2 prepared his salary bill in February 1999 and deducted eight months premium of Rs.6029/- and sent it to respondent No.1.

 

5. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that none of the contentions of the appellant have been discussed by the District Forum nor has District Forum gone to the question as to the liability of the employer if any and District Forum has also not taken into consideration the statement of premium deducted from the salary of the insured which has been produced before us showing that premium was being continuously paid upto January 2000 i.e. one month prior to his death.”

 

13. The impugned order has been perused.  The District Forum has simply recorded the facts of the complaint case and thereafter has mentioned about the passing of the order by this Commission in FA-22/2004 on 24.01.2008.  The District Forum has quoted paras 2 to 6 of the judgement of this Commission dated 24.01.2008.  Thereafter the written statement of the appellant/OP is stated in the next two paras.  Immediately thereafter without discussing the points on which it was remanded back and without discussing the evidence on record has directed the appellant to pay 2 lacs as an insured amount with interest @ 8% to respondent No.1/complainant.  The impugned order is not dealing with any of the grounds on which the matter was remanded back by this Commission earlier.  No reasoning is also given by the District Forum as on what basis the directions have been given to the appellant to make payment.  The District Forum ought to have taken into consideration the relevant pleadings of the parties and evidence on record and thereafter could have dealt with the matter.  The impugned order is a non-speaking order.  The parties have also not filed copies of evidence/documents which they had filed before the District Forum in the form of affidavits. The directions to the appellant to make payment to the respondent No.1 are not based on any material on record.  In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 
14. We, therefore, accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to District Forum to decide afresh as per directions given by this Commission in its earlier order after considering material on record.
15. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 13.07.2015.   Since the complaint case is of 2001, the Ld. District Forum shall make all endeavour to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible.       
16. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member