The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that her late husband G. Mohan Rao was working under Op.1 and during his life time he had insured his life under Bima Kiran Policy (without profit) with Op No.2 vide Pol. No.602585464 w. e. f. 28/07/2001 for a sum assured of Rs.1.00 LAC with premium of Rs.143/- p.m. to be deducted from his salary and the present complainant was the nominee under the policy. It is submitted that the life assured died 16.07.2011 while subsistence of the policy and the present complainant being the nominee approached the Op.2 for settlement of death claim of the insured. While issuing claim form, the Op.2 made a query on 18.11.2013 and asked the complainant to show reason for gap premium for  the month of Sept. and Oct., 2001 and the OP.1 has intimated Op.2 vide letter dt. 25.01.2014 stating that the premium @ 143/- of the life assured for the month of Sept. and Oct., 2001 duly deducted from his salary have been deposited with premiums of other employees. It is further submitted that even after complainant of the same, the Op-2has not settled the death claim in favor of the complainant. With these allegations alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she filled this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops. To pay the maturity value under the policy with interest @ 12 percent p. a. and to pay Rs.1.00 Lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.            Op No.1 filled counter contending that the Office of the Op. No.1 only prepares the attendance of the employees and submit the same to the Office of the Superintending Engineer where the Accounts Officers prepared salary bills of employees and deducts LIC premiums and sends the same in shape of cheque to OP.2 has furnished copy of Fixed charge Register (FCR) of relevant portion for the financial year 2001-2002, the respective page of late G. Mohan Rao, Ex. FM-II along with remittance particulars of LIC for the Month of Sept. and Oct., 2001 in support of their case. It is contended that they have already deposited the LIC premium of G. Mohan Rao with the LIC for the said period and as such objection raised by Op. BNp-2 is not sustainable. Thus denying any fault on their part the OP filled his above version.

03.          The OP No.2 in spite of valid notice neither preferred to file counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner, and thus remained exparte in the entire proceeding.

04.          The complainant well as Op. No.1 has filed certain documents in support of their case. Complainant has filled affidavit. Heard from the A/R for the complainant as well as Op. no.1 and perused the materials available on record.

05.          In this case policy vide No. 602585464 under Salary Saving Scheme obtained by the late G.Mohan Rao, an ex-employee of Op.No-1 from Op.2 is an admitted fact. The policy was commenced from 28.07.2001 with maturity date 28.06.2021 with monthly premium of Rs. 143/- for a sum assured of Rs.1.00 Lac and the wife and present complainant that the Life assured while subsistence of the Policy died on 16.07.2011. It is seen that the wife of the life assured approached the Op.2 for settlement of the claim by filing necessary papers.

06.          The OP No.2 issued claim form in favour of the nominee vide its letter dt. 18.11.2013 and asked the complainant to show reasons for gap in premium for 9 & 10/ 2001 of the deceased life assured. As per request of the nominee, the Op.1 being the employer has intimated the Op.2 vide letter dt.25.01.2014 that the premiums for 9 & 10/2001 in respect of the deceased employee have been remitted to the LIC vide Cheque No. 957494 and 957529 respectively @ Rs.5107080 in a consolidated form of the employees of the establishment. In support of above payment, the Op-1 has also furnished the copy of FCR for the financial year, 2001-2002 from which it was ascertained that the Op.1 has deducted Rs. 143/- each for said period. The Op.1 has also intimated the same fact with cheque/payment details to Op.2 on 25.01.2014, the copy of which is available on record,

7.            In spite of above steps taken by OP-1 employer, the Op.2 remained silent and did not come forward to settle the legitimate claim of the complainant. Further in absence of counter and participation of the Op-2 in the present proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from OP.2 however, we are convinced that the objection raised by Op.2 has been duly complied by Op.1 in time but the Op.2 has not take4n any steps to settle the claim of the complainant which in our opinion amounts to serious deficiency in service on its part and as such the complainant is suffering till date. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for death benefit of her late husband. Further due to such inaction of the Op.2 the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which she is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice. However, we find no fault on the part of Op.1.

8.            Hence ordered that the  complainant petition is allowed on part and the Op.2 is directed to settle the death benefit of Rs. 1.00 lac with loyalty Additions and other benefits such as bonus etc attached to the policy in case of death claim and to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the death benefit etc. 12 Percent p.a. from the date of filling of this case i.e. from 19.04.2014 till payment. However, no orders against Op No.1 as we found no fault on its part.