SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Khirod Pujhari has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service. Case of the complainant is that his father Late Gobardhan Pujhari was a policy holder under Krishi Shramik Samajik Suraksha Yojana (K.S.S.S.Y.) Scheme having Master Policy No.79883. This policy was floated by the L.I.C. of India. The policy holder was paying premiums regularly since dt.12.1.2002 to the Nodal Officer i.e. O.P.No.3. Last premium was paid by the deceased policy holder to the O.P.No.3 on dt.3.1.2007, which was due on dt.12.1.2007. The O.P.No.3 also signed one premium receipt/certificate which was issued to the deceased policy holder.

                2. Unfortunately, Gobardhan Pujari, late policy holder expired on dt.20.5.2007 and thereafter his son, the present complainant being the legal heir/successor had filed the insurance claim on dated.9.9.2010 before the Nodal Officer, Telitileimal Gram Panchayat, O.P.No.2 with all required documents/papers and O.P.No.2 was supposed to forward the same to the L.I.C. of India, O.P.No.1 for necessary action. O.P.No.1 received the death intimation vide letter No.72 dt.29.9.2010- of O.P.No.2 and after verification returned all the claim papers to the Nodal Officer, Telitileimal Gram Panchayat, O.P.No.2  on dt.5.10.2010 for certain defected to be complied.

                3. The complainant submitted all required documents/papers to the O.P.no.2 to be forwarded to O.P.No.1, but O.P.No.2 took no interest. Hence the petitioner booked complaint to the Chairman, Taluk Legal Committee, Kuchinda, District; Sambalpuir in L.A.Case No.2 of 2011. The O.P.No.2 promised to clear all the papers and accordingly, he forwarded all required papers/documents after due compliance to the O.P.No.1. The LIC of India, O.P.No.1 paid only Rs.2,211/- vide Cheque No.239048 dt.12.3.2011 with an observation that the premium due on dt.12.1.2007 was received on dt.22.9.2007  i.e. after the date of death of the deceased policy holder. According to O.P.No.1, the death benefit is not payable and hence only accumulated premium has been paid.

                4. According to the complainant, Late Gobardhan Pujhari was the policy holder under K.S.S.S.Y. Scheme and had paid the premium due to the O.P.No.3 on dt.03.01.2007. The Block Development Officer, Kuchinda, O.P.No.4 had also written a letter bearing No.999 dt.9.5.2007 to the O.P.No.1 for delay caused to deposit the premium by the O.P.No.3 and requested to take necessary desired steps for continuation of policies on deposit of premium amount by the Secretary/Nodal Officer.

                5. As the assured amount was not paid to the claimant, the petitioner claims that due to the negligence of the O.Ps, he suffered mental agony, financial loss and O.P.No.3 has committed deficiency in service by not forwarding the amount in proper period of time to the O.P.No.1. Under these circumstances, complainant has filed this case praying to pass an order:

                (a) to pay the full ensured amount i.e. Rs.20,000/- with up-to-date legitimate interest.

                (b) to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- in favour of the petitioner towards mental agony and

                harassment caused.

                ( c ) cost of the litigation and any other relief found just and proper by the Forum.

6. Documents filed by the complainant are Xerox copies of (1) Death certificate of Late

Gobardhan Pujhari dt.22.7.2009 (2) Premium receipt/certificate issued to Late Gobardhan Pujhari (3) Copy of Letter dt.9.9.2010 of complainant to O.P.No.2 (4) Letter dt.5.10.2010 of O.P.No.1 to complainant (5)  Letter dt.15.11.2010 of complainant to O.P.No.2 (6) Order passed in L.A.Case No.2/2011 (7) Written submission dt.26.2.2011 given by  O.P.No.2 in L.A.Case No.2/2011 (8) Letter dt. 11.3.2011 ussyed by O.P.No.1.

7. O.P.No.4 was set ex-parte on 22.7.2011 for non-appearance. The other three O.Ps appeared

through their Advocates and filed their separate written versions.  In his written version O.P.No.1 agrees that Late Gobardhan  Pujari is a beneficiary under K.S.S.S.Y  Master  Policy bearing No.79883 of L.I.C. of India . The Telitileimal Gram Panchayat is the nodal agency and the Secretary-cum-Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat is the Master policy holder.

8. The O.P.No.1 further states that renewal of the Maser policy No.79883 was due every year on

12^th January with grace period of 3 months.  For the year 2007, the annual premium was due on 12.1.2007 which was not deposited and it remained in force for three months i.e. till dt.12.4.2007. As no premium was paid till the end of the grace period i.e. 12.4.2007, the policy was lapsed. The O.P.No.4 vide his letter No.2730 dt.21.8.2007 requested the O.P.no.1 to regularize the policy which was agreed to subject to the conditions that:

1. The master policy holder i.e. the Secretary-cum- Executive Officer of Telitileimal Gram Panchayat shall furnish a declaration to the effect that all the members/beneficiaries of the policy are in good health as on the date of renewal  and
2. The master policy holder shall deposit the due premium with an interest @ 9% per annum.
9. The master policy holder in his letter dt.22.9.2007 gave a declaration that all the members/beneficiaries are in good health and the master policy holder deposited the premium amount with interest and the policy was renewed with effect from dt.22.9.2007. The annual premiums  were paid in the years 2008,2009 and 2010 in due time , but the name of Late Gobardhan  Pujari was missing from the list of beneficiaries submitted by the master policy holder at the time of payment of premium for the above years.
10.  On dt,4,.10,.2010 this O.P. received a letter bearing No.72 dt.29.9.2010 from the ExecutiveOfficer, Telitileimal Gram Panchayat along with some documents, which intimated this O.P. that one beneficiary was dead.  After receiving the death information of Gobardhan Pujhari, this O.P. wrote a letter dt.15.10.2010 to the Executive Office, Telitileimal Gram Panchayat to clarify regarding some discrepancies in their particular letter dt29.9.2010, but the letter was returned back undelivered.On verification by the O.P.no.1 it came to light that Late Gobardhan Pujhari died on dt.20.5.2007, which was within the period of lapsed condition of the master policy. In this year the policy was renewed with effect from dt.22.9.2007. As the master policy holder in his declaration dated.22.9.2007 had stated that all the beneficiaries of the above policy were in good health. Hence this statement contradicts the death of Gobardhan Pujhari , who died on dt.20.5.2007.
11. According to the O.P.No.1, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is correct and as per the norms of K.S.S.S.Y. Scheme, the accumulated premium amounting to Rs.2,211/- was paid in favour of the complainant on dt.11.3.2011. The O.P.No.1 stats that it has acted bonafidely and not defaulted in rendering its service. As the action of O.P.No.1 is genuine and legal, no claim lies against this O.P.

                Documents filed by the O.P.No.1 are Xerox copies of:

(1 )Scheme of K.S.S.S.Y-2001 (2) Letter of L.I.C. dt.23.8.2007 (3) Letter of Secretary. Telitileimal  G.P.dt. 22.9.2007 (4) Receipt for deposit of renewal premium of Rs.22,989/- dt.22.9.2007 (5) Letter No.72 dt.29.9.2010 along with claim form and documents (6) Schedule of payment of claim dt. 11.3.2011.

12. O.P.No.2 filed his version claiming g that there is no deficiency in service against him and complaint is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum and this complaint is liable to be rejected under Section-12(3) read with Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
13. O.P.No.2 further states that he has joined Telitileimal Gram Panchayat on dt.13.12.2009. Hence the facts mentioned in para-3 of the complaint petition are beyond his knowledge and he goes on to state that there is no deficiency in service caused by this O.P. to the complainant and hence the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed. O.P.No.2 has not filed any document.
14. The O.P.No.3 filed his written version on dt.23.3.2012 and admitted the case at para-1 of the complaint petition. O.P.No.3 submits that the K.S.S.S.Y. Scheme is a group insurance scheme, where a group of people consisting of several numbers paid their individual premium/installments to the insurance authority through the Gram Panchayat i.e. the Nodal Officer and the Block Development Officer. The scheme is a Government sponsored welfare scheme meant for agricultural labourers.
15. The further case of the O.P.No.3 is that the scheme being a group insurance welfare scheme, the premium is to be paid by each member of the agreed group. Usually the members did not pay the premium in time for which it is deposited at late with the permission of the B.D.O. or the insurance authority i.e. O.P.No.1. Sometimes, the Nodal officer himself pays from his own pocket; for the defaulting members.
16. Sometimes, the Nodal officer keeping in view of the welfare of the group ordinarily accept the premium even after due date but endorse all the premiums paid on a single day. In the present case also the O.P.No.3 was the Nodal officer and had endorsed acceptance of the premium to have been made on dt.03.01.2007. The premium was actually paid by the son of the insured much after the month of May, 2007. Some other members had paid their respective premiums/installments on dt.03.01.2007 and as per practice; the O.P.No.3 endorsed the date 3.1.2007.  O.P.No.3 further goes to say that the premium/installment was paid by the son of the insured belatedly, the present complainant with ulterior motive though his father had already expired. The date of death of the insured was purposefully kept out of the knowledge of o.P.No.3  and the O.P.No.3 in good faith and with sense of concern for the insured accepted the premium paid by the complainant.
17. According to the O.P.No.3, this is supported by the fact that in 2007 the premium was paid in a date with the permission of the B.D.O. and the insurance authority. O.P.No.3 further states that the complainant is the main mischief player and he has played fraud with the O.P.No.3 to accept the premium though his father was dead. Hence O.P.No.3 is not liable and the case of the complainant be dismissed as devoid of any merit. O.P.No.3 has not filed any documents.
18. Heard the parties and perused the complaint petition, written versions and documents filed by the parties and placed on record.

                FINDINGS

                                K.S.S.S.Y. Scheme is a Government sponsored scheme which was started in the year 2001 for the benefit of the agricultural labourers. The Nodal officer had to create a group of 20 persons after identifying the agricultural labourers and yearly premium of Rs.365/- was to be paid by the members for 10 years. Central Government will pay Rs.730/- as its share as per the scheme. Late Gobnardhan Pujhari was a member under this scheme and he was issued with beneficiary particulars which shows that for normal death Rs.20,000/- is to be payable to the nominee. The date of payment from 2002 onwards reveals that he was paying the premium within due date. For the period 2007, he paid the premium amount on dt.03.01.2007, which was signed by the Nodal Officer accepting the fact that he has paid the amount on 3.1.2007. No evidence has been lead to enable us to believe this statement.

                20. O.P.No.1 has categorically stated that Master Policy No.79883 which covers the deceased lapsed due to non-payment of premium within the grace period also. But on the letter of request by the B.D.O.(O.P.No.4)  vide Letter No.2730 dt.21.8.2007, who requested the O.P.No.1 to regularize the policy for the interest of the beneficiaries and the premium was paid on dt.22.9.2007, though policy had already lapsed, O.P.No.1 further avers that the Nodal Officer i.e. O.P.No.3 gave declaration that all the beneficiaries are in good health as on dt.22.9.2007.

                21. These two observations by O.P.No.1 have not been controverted by O.P.No.3 directly. It has taken very vague stand that the premium for the deceased was paid by the complainant with ulterior motive on a later date, but the Nodal officer has given a single date for all the beneficiaries, which is not borne on record. Neither the then Nodal Officer, O.P.No.3 has given any evidence that he received the premium on a later date and he had no knowledge about the death of the deceased beneficiary Gobardhan Pujhari.

                22. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that O.P.No.3 was totally negligent and he was not performing his duties as per law and is charting a course which is not legally permissible. We hold that O.P.No.3 is inefficient and has suppressed facts from this Forum and for his inefficiency the nominee of the deceased policy holder i.e. the complainant could not get the benefit which was supposed to be provided by the Central Government. We find no fault with the L.I.C.(O.P.No.3) in this case. We also find no fault with the O.P.Nos.2 & 4. Hence O.P.Nos.1, 2 & 4 are exonerated from this proceeding. O.P.No.3 was the then Nodal Officer of Telitileimal Gram Panchayat, who is squarely at fault and for his negligence and inefficiency the complainant was deprived of the benefit under the scheme.

                23. In view of the above discussion, we allow the case of the complainant against Nikhil Chandra Dharua, Ex-Nodal Officer, Telitileimal Gram Panchayat, O.P.No.3 on contest. We direct the O.P.No.3 to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) as per the benefit under the policy as the death of the deceased policy holder is normal death as reveals from the death certificate, with interest at the rate of 12 (Twelve) per cent per annum from the date of death i.e. 20.5.2007 till the  date of actual  payment. The O.P.No.3 is further directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) towards cost of the proceeding. The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of order.