BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 7th June 2012
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.319/2010
Shanthavva,
Wo Halappa Lamani,
Aged about 55 years years,
Occupation Labour,
Hanagal Taluk,
Haveri District. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant : Sri Somashekhar M.Kotambari)
VERSUS
1. Manager,
Life Insurance of India Limited,
Mangalore.
2. Divisional Officer,
Life Insurance of India Limited,
Mangalore.
3. Manager,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Mangalore.
4. Divisional Controlling Officer,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 & 2: Anantha Krishna Udupa)
(Opposite Party No.3: Exparte)
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.4: Sri Manoraj R)
* * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, the deceased Chandu Halappa Lamani is the son of the complainant and he was working as a Bus Conductor in K.S.R.T.C. II Depot, Mangalore. During the time of employment had obtained a Jeevan Anand Life Insurance Policy on 21.4.2007 bearing it No. 62273721 for Rs.1,00,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and the nominee of the said policy was the complainant herein. The premium was to be paid every month. The deceased life assured had authorized and requested the Divisional controller, K.S.R.T.C. Bejai Mangalore to deduct and remit the insurance premium of the captioned policy from his salary on monthly basis as per the authorization letter dated 7.5.2007. That on 22.9.2008 the life insured Chandu Halappa Lamani died due to ill-health.
Thereafter the complainant produced all documents in respect of the said policy before the Director L.I.C., Mangalore. But they are not responding. Hence the complainant issued notice on 20.8.2009 by R.P.A.D. Thereafter the authorized person of the L.I.C. Mangalore intimated the complainant that on 16.11.2009 the said policy was lapsed due to non receipt of the monthly premium. Further the complainant submits that the L.I.C. Mangalore shifted their burden to the K.S.R.T.C. Mangalore and the K.S.R.T.C. Mangalore shifted their burden to L.I.C. and stated that they are not responsible for the same. Hence, the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as policy amount along with interest at 18% per annum and a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version.
Opposite Party No.1 and 2 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India, submits that the complaint is barred by limitation since the policy is under lapsed condition from 7/07 for want of premium and there is no cause of action as against Opposite Party No.1 and 2 since these Opposite Parties on receipt of the authorization letter forwarded the same to the Opposite Party No.3 and 4. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 further submitted that the life assured issued authorization letter in the prescribed format in favour of Divisional controller, K.S.R.T.C. Mangalore. Further Opposite Party No.1 and 2 submits that during the life time of the life assured itself the fact that the captioned policy was under lapsed condition for non-remittance of premium due from 7/2007. Further the Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C Mangalore who was the employer of the deceased life assured has not deducted from the salary and remitted the premium, due to which the policy is under lapsed condition due from 7/07 on words, so also the life assured has not made necessary arrangements to remit the policy inspite of lapse notice served on him. Hence prays that there is no deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
But Opposite Party NO.3 adopted version of Opposite Party No.4 and submitted that the deceased Halappa Lamani was appointed as trainee conductor, of KSRTC II Depot Mangalore Division and they denied that Opposite Party NO.3 and 4 not aware of the fact that the deceased had obtained Insurance policy from L.I.C. of India and also deceased or Opposite Party No.1 and 2 or its agents had intimated K.S.R.T.C. with regard to obtaining of policy and also deceased Opposite Party No.1 and 2 had not intimated to Opposite Party No.3 and 4 to pay the policy premium by deducting the same from his salary. Opposite Party No.3 and 4 further denied that they are the strangers to the contract entered between L.I.C. of India and late Halappa Lamani. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Smt. Shanthavva Halappa Lamani (CW1) – Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C12 were exhibited for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 One Mr. Sripathi Upadhya (RW-1) filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex R1 to R8 were exhibited for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure in detail. On behalf of the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 one Mrs. B. Sowbhaghya (RW-2) filed affidavit and one Mrs. V. Prema has examined as (RW-3) on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2 and produced document and Exhibited as Ex.R3 which is endorsement in S.L.No.2101 to dispatched mail to KSRTC. Both the parties produced notes of arguments.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Points No.(i) & (ii) : Negative.
Point (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. Points No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are admitted is that, the son of the complainant i.e. one Mr.Chandu Halappa Lamani obtained Life Insurance policy bearing No.62273721 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and commenced on 2.5.2007 with the 1 and 2 Opposite Party. The life assured Chandu Halappa Lamani died on 22.9.2008 leaving behind the complainant (as per Ex.C1). It is also admitted that, the deceased Chandu Halappa lamani was working as Bus Conductor in KSRTC II Depot, Mangalore i.e. Opposite Party No.3 and 4.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, after the death of the insured Chandu Halappa Lamani, the complainant lodged the claim under the above said policy with Opposite Party i.e. L.I.C. of India, but the same has been not paid till this date and thereafter issued legal notice (i.e. Ex.C5 and C8 calling upon to pay the above sum assured and the benefits under the policy, but the Opposite Parties not paid the same. Hence this complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 contended that, the policy No.62273721 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- issued under the salary savings scheme has been lapsed. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not get the premium from 7/2007 on words from the employer i.e. Opposite Party No.4. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter through registered post on 29.6.2007 i.e. Ex.R3 to the Opposite Party No.4. Inspite of receipt for authorization letter the KSRTC has not deducted any amount from the salary of the life assured nor paid any premium amount to the LIC of India. The life assured inspite of receipt of the intimation regarding lapsed condition of the policy as per Ex. C4 had not made any attempts to revise the policy. In the authorization letter life assured had authorized the Divisional controller of KSRTC to deduct the premium amount for a sum of Rs.281/- per month from his salary and remit the same to the L.I.C. of India towards his captioned policy. The above said authorization letter is served to the Opposite Party No.4 to prove the extract of RPAD register marked as Ex.R3. Furthers Opposite Party No.1 and 2 submitted that Ex.R2 clearly shows that page No.2 policy clause No.22 “It shall be the responsibility of the life assured/proposer to ensure that the installment premium is deducted from his/her salary and remitted to the corporation or failing that premium is paid directly to the corporation within days of grace at increased rates. Hence it is the duty of the life assured to make the payment. Hence Opposite party No.1 and 2 submits that they are not responsible for policy is in lapsed condition.
In other hand Opposite party No.3 and 4 submits that Mr.Halappa Lamani son of the complainant was appointed as trainee conductor and also admitted that his badge number is 2835 and he was connected to II depot of KSRTC Mangalore Division which is not in dispute. Further Opposite Party No.3 and 4 are not disputed that the complainant son nor Opposite Party No.1 and 2 had mentioned the badge No. 2835 in the authorization letter identifying from which workmen’s salary the premium had to be collected and remitted to which policy. But Opposite party No.3 and 4 submits that non availability of the badge No. of the workman, the premium amount could not be deducted from the salary of the workman and remit the same to the L.I.C. Further Opposite Party No.3 and 4 submitted that as per the terms and conditions No.4 of the letter of authorization, in the event of the non-payment of the premium to the corporation by the employer for whatever reason, which is policy holder’s responsible to pay the premium. Hence, Opposite Party No.3 and 4 is not responsible for the same.
In order to substantiate the averments raised in the complaint, the Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C12. And Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R8.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, we are come to conclusion that the son of the complainant obtained policy which is exhibited as Ex.C2 and C3. Ex C1 disclosed the death of the policy holder. Ex.C4 i.e. authorization letter send to the employer i.e. Opposite party No.4. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to the Opposite party No.2 i.e. marked as Ex.C5. reply notice of the L.I.C. marked as Ex.c6 and C7. Legal Notice to KSRTC is marked as Ex.C8 and C9. Reply notice from KSRTC marked as Ex.C10. Postal acknowledgement marked as Ex.C11. No doubt, all these document proves that the deceased Halappa Lamani obtained policy bearing No.622773721 for Rs.1,00,000/-. To prove the case of Opposite party No.1 and 2 produced documents which is marked as Ex.R1 to R8. Ex.R2 and R3 shows that authorization letter which is duly served to the KSRTC Bejai and which is not in dispute. Further Ex.R6 and R8 letter dated 21.10.2009 send to the Opposite party No.3 i.e. Depot Manager KSRTC Mangalore Division Bejai stated that “the policy is in lapsed condition, since 7/07 and policy were not recovered inspite of our letter of authorization to recover the same from the salary of the said employer of your institution.” After perusing the authorization letter i.e. Ex.C4 which disclosed in policy clause No.22. Point No.1: “It shall be the responsibility of the life assured/proposer to ensure that the installment premium is deducted from his/her salary and remitted to the corporation or failing that premium is paid directly to the corporation within days of grace at increased rates.” Further Point No.4:- Which is also declared that “the policy shall stands lapsed if the due premium is not received by the corporation within 15 days of the due date as mentioned above and the life assured/proposer being primarily responsible to keep the policy in force”. If the policy in lapsed condition it is bounden duty of complainant to fulfill the condition once he obtain the policy and also letter i.e. Ex.R4 has been received from the L.I.C. i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and also complainant not at all made any attempt to give reply to the L.I.C. on that effect which shows that the gross negligent of the complainant. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant not established the case against opposite parties and not even produced the salary certificate of the deceased. If the complainant produced the salary certificate which definitely disclose the deduction of the premium amount from his salary. The initial burden of the complainant to prove the case and must produce the documentary evidence. The L.I.C. of India sent a letter on 12.2.2008 i.e. Ex.R4 which disclosed that the policy of the complainant was in lapsed condition. Since 7/7 and the insurer died on 22.9.208 since more than one year the deceased Chandu Halappa was silent and not remitted lapsed premium amount and also not even intimated to the opposite party No.3 and 4 to pay the premium and not even made any necessary arrangement to remit the premium. At the time of receiving the letter from the L.I.C. the complainant was silent at that time and even after also not replied for the said letter and also not personally paid premium which shows that the clear negligence on the part of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 and 4 says that deceased Chandu Halappa Lamani was trainee conductor. But the complainant not prove the contention of the opposite party No.3 and 4 by producing documents or any evidence. Further opposite party No.3 and 4 stated that during the period of policy had lapsed condition the complainant was on loss of pay due to absent from duty and during the trainee period itself he remained unauthorized absent resulting in loss of pay. To prove the unauthorized absence also complainant not examined any witness or summoned the said documents or else atleast production of attendance ledger before the FORA. Which itself shows that the complainant not established the case.
For the aforesaid reason, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties and the complainant is not produced any evidence or single piece of documents to show that the deceased Chandu Halappa Lamani was the trainee conductor and during trainee period itself he remained unauthorized absent resulting the loss of pay till the death. Hence only the oral evidence is not benefited to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merits deserves to be dismissed. No order as to cost.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 7TH day of June 2012)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Smt.Shanthavva Halappa Lamani - complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 3.10.2008: Death certificate of deceased Chandru Halappa Lamani.
Ex C2 – 30.4.2007: Premium Receipt.
Ex C3 – 1.7.2007: L.I.C Bond
Ex C4 – 7.5.2007: Letter of Authorization.
Ex C5 – 20.8.2009: Notice to the Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India Mangalore.
Ex C6 – 8.9.2009: Reply by L.I.C. Mangalore.
Ex C7 – 16.11.2009: Endorsement letter issued by L.I.C. of India Mangalore.
Ex C8 – 22.2.2010: Notice to the Manager KSRTC Mangalore.
Ex C9 – 15.3.2010: Notice to the divisional controller.
Ex C10 – 16.4.2010: Reply by Divisional Controller Mangalore.
Ex C11 – Postal Acknowledgement of all notices.
Ex C12 – 29.10.2010: Certified copy of order sheet of District Consumer forum, Haveri.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr.Sripathi Upadhya for Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
RW2- Mrs.B.Sowbhaghya for Opposite Party No.3 and 4.
RW3 – Mrs.V.Prema for Opposite Party No.2
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – Policy issued to the Life assured.
Ex R2 – 7.5.2007: Authorization letter.
Ex R3 – 29.6.2007: Photocopy of the extract of RPAD Register.
Ex R4 – 12.2.2008: Office copy of the letter sent to the life assured.
Ex R5 – 22.9.2008: Death Certificate of the Life Assured.
Ex R6 – 21.10.2009: Letter issued to O.P.No.3 and O.P.No.4.
Ex R7 -21.10.2009: Repudiation Letter.
Ex R8 –17.11.2009: Reminder Letter.
Dated:07.06.2012 MEMBER
