BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1439/2007 against C.C.  136/2003, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam.       

Between:

The Mandal Development Officer

Kanchil Mandal

Srikakulam Dist.                                         ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                O.P. No. 2

And

1)  Smt. Bhagyavathi Goudo

W/o.  Late Kuro Goudo

Jalantrakota Village & PO

Kanchili Mandal,

Srikakulam Dist.                                       ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                      Complainant.

2)  The Dist. Insurance Officer

Srikakulam (Post & Dist).                           ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                O.P. No. 1.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. M. Venkata Ramana  Reddy

Counsel for the Resp:                                  M/s. Aravala Rama Rao (R1)

CORAM:

                             HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT  

&

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY  OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble  Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                                   ***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by  Op2    the Mandal Development Officer, Kanchili against the order of the Dist. Forum  directing him    to pay  Rs.  29,150/-  towards APGLI  together with interest, compensation and costs.   

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that  she is  the wife of  late  Kura Goudo a teacher in   M.P.E. School, J. Manikyapuram  of  Kanchili Mandal in Srikakulam Dist.    During his service he contributed  amounts   under Andhra Pradesh Government  Life Insurance  (APGLI)  scheme,  showing her as his nominee.   After his death when she claimed the amount  they did not pay.  Thereupon she got issued a legal notice  for which  the  Dist. Insurance Officer replied stating that the file was forwarded to the Director of Insurance, Hyderabad  for certain instructions and after receiving it   they would be able to  take action in the matter.   Though her husband died 5 years ago nothing was settled and therefore she claimed the amount covered under the policy  with interest @ 12% p.a., together with damages of  Rs. 2,000/- and costs. 

3)                OP1 the  District Insurance Officer resisted the case.    However, he  admitted that  R2  the Mandal Development Officer, Kanchili  was the drawing officer of the deceased, while he was working in M.P.E. School, J. Manikyapuram  of  Kanchili Mandal.   R2 deducted monthly premium @ Rs. 125/-  per month  for the months of 1/98, 2/98  and 3/98 and submitted  the challan vide dt. 13.7.1998.  It was subsequent to the death of the deceased,  who died on  29.5.1998.    R2 after  a lapse of 1 year 2 months  of the death of the deceased  suppressing the fact of death,   as though he was hale and healthy  and alive sent the amount .  Not knowing all this  it had issued policy on  1.12.1999.    The proposal  sent after the death was contrary to  APGLI Rules.    Had the death been informed,   they  would not have issued the policy bond.   Therefore, the claim was repudiated.   The entire  responsibility is on R2.  Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                Though  OP2 the appellant had  appeared  and  requested time for counter and  affidavit evidence,   despite imposing costs,  did not choose to file and finally  was set-exparte. 

5)                The complainant in proof of her case, filed her  affidavit evidence  and got  Exs. A1 to A4 marked, while  R1 filed the affidavit evidence of its  Assistant Director Sri  A. Pulleswara Rao, and got Exs. B1 to B11 marked. 

6)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the appellant having collected the amount  did not submit the proposal form  in time, suppressed the fact of death of the deceased.   It amounts to deficiency in service  for which it was liable to pay the assured sum.  While dismissing the complaint against  R1, it directed  R2 the appellant to  pay  Rs. 29,150/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 29.5.1998 till the date of realization together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/-  and costs of  Rs. 1,000/-. 

7)                Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the appeal contending that  the Dist. Forum did not appreciate  the facts in correct perspective.    It was only an agent  who can  deduct  the amount  from out of the salary  and send  it to   APGLI office.  In fact as per  G.O. Ms. No. 40 Dt. 7.5.2002  the Mandal Educational  Officer is the concerned officer who had to deduct the insurance premia.    He ought to have been impleaded.    There was no negligence on his part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

8)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

9)                It is an undisputed fact that  the complainant is the wife of Late Kuro Goudo  who worked as a teacher in M.P.E. school in a village.   By virtue of his employment  he had to  obtain APGLI policy floated by  Government of Andhra Pradesh wherein he would be entitled to Rs. 29,150/-  towards sum assured.   R1 had categorically mentioned that the appellant was the drawing officer  and as such  he deducted the monthly premium  at  Rs. 125/- per month  for the months of 1/98, 2/98 and 3/98  and submitted the challan on  13.7.1998.    He submitted his proposal form  Ex. B1 mentioning  the complainant as his nominee, counter signed by  appellant on  27.4.1998.    He also mentioned in the proposal form that  he had colleted  premium  of Rs. 125/- p.m.  for the months of  1/98, 2/98 and 3/98 and he sent the said amount through challan  Dt. 13.7.1998.    R1 in turn processed the application issued policy Ex. A1 agreeing to pay assured sum of Rs. 29,150/- on  collecting  premium from out of his salary  by the appellant.   Admittedly even before sending this amount by way of challan Dt. 13.7.1998,   the assured died on  29.5.1998 evidenced under death certificate  Ex. B3,  and Ex. B2 legal heirs certificate issued by  Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanchili.    From this it is beyond doubt that  before  issuance of the policy,   the assured died.    It was undoubtedly due to latches on the part of appellant  in not sending the premium amount immediately.  Having collected the amount from out of the salary of the assured, it had taken four months to send the amount.    In fact the appellant has confirmed  his salary particulars  etc. sent it on 27.4.1998.    The delay was enormous.    When  the complainant claimed the amount  R1 informed the said fact to the appellant  he  in turn confirmed the death  of the deceased on  29.5.1998,      alleging that the delay was occasioned due to submission of certification  of aquittance   register etc.    R1 has consistently issued notices to the appellant  vide letters Exs. B 5 to B11, however the appellant did not respond.   Since the premium amount as well as proposal was received subsequent to the death of the deceased  the amount covered under the policy could not be paid, and the file was sent to  Head Office at Hyderabad.   Whatever be the reason, the amount could not be settled in view of  exorbitant and unnecessary delay  caused by the appellant.   When it had taken  the duty to deduct the premium amount  from out of the salary  and send it to  the insurance office, there is no reason why  the amounts having been collected  in the month of 3/1998,   sent it  in the month of July, 1998.   In the meantime, the proposer  died.  Had the appellant  sent the amount  immediately,  this would not have  happened.    

10)              Though for the first time  in the appeal, it was contended that the Mandal Educational Officer is the drawing officer, no evidence by way of  proceedings whatsoever, is filed.    In the light of certificate issued by the very appellant  in the proposal form  it is the appellant that had to deduct  the premium from out of the salary of the employee.  

11)              The Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Delhi Electric  Supply Undertaking  Vs. Basanti Devi  reported  in AIR 2000 SC 43  considering the salary savings scheme of LIC  and  agreement between  employer and LIC,   the premium payable  by employer  is to be deducted every month from salary of employee  and to be remitted  to LIC and any delay  or negligence on the part of  the  employer  it was held that the  employer is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the insurance policy of the employee.    The decision reiterates that the  employer was guilty of  non-deduction of premium from out of the salary.    The said decision  applies in all  fours to the facts of the present case. 

12)              We are of the  opinion that  appellant was liable to pay the amount.   It was due to his delay, all this  had occasioned.    The Dist. Forum has considered this issue in correct perspective, and allowed the complaint.    We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

13)               In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at  Rs. 1,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks. 

1)                                                                       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      _____________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                                        Dt.  27. 04. 2010.  

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”