Heard.

The complainant’s husband was employed as Assistant Lineman in GESCOM, Koppal for about five years, who was a member of Personal Group Insurance Scheme sponsored by the GESCOM by taking the policy from the Insurance Company every financial year.  The scheme during the financial year 2013-14 ended on 29-03-2014.  The GESCOM did not sponsored the scheme again.  So, the scheme ended on 29-03-2014.

2.  The complainant’s husband died on 22-05-2014 during the course of employment.  Claim for Rs.4.00 Lakhs on account of accidental death of employee was made by the complainant herein on 24-07-2014.  Reply was sent by GESCOM on 12-11-2014 stating that the scheme of Personal Group Insurance was ended on 29-03-2014 and there is no scheme entered into any insurance company and therefore no subsequent fee has been deducted from the salary of the employee and therefore no amount is payable.  Hence, the complaint against the GESCOM and also New India Assurance Company claiming Rs.4,00,000.00 plus compensation.

3.  The relationship between the employer and employee is not within a ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ and therefore complaint as against GESCOM is not maintainable before this District Forum.

4.  The personal group insurance scheme was not accepted by the New India Assurance Company in force as on 22-05-2014.  No subscription amount has been paid.  The insurance company has not authorized the employer to deduct the subscription amount.  No policy was in force.  Therefore, there is no relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ in between the deceased employee and the insurance company.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum.

5.  Counsel for the complainant has placed before us the decision of the National Commission reported in 2014 (1)
CPC – 597.  That was a case where the death has occurred because of accident involving fall from a electric poll 30 ft height and under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.  In the case before us, no policy is in existence, hence the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.

6.  Based on the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission.