Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
1. These appeals take an exception to the order dated 20/03/1999 in consumer complaint No.294/1998 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (‘the Forum’ in short).
2. Being aggrieved by the order, the original complainant had filed Appeal No.831/1999 for enhancement of compensation. The original opponents Nos.1&2 have filed Appeal No.851/1999 and the original opponents Nos.3&4 have filed Appeal No.855/1999 for setting aside the order dated 20/03/1999.
3. Since all the three appeals involves common question of law, all the three appeals are clubbed together and common order is passed.
4. The facts leading to these appeals can be summerised as under :-
5. The husband of original complainant/appellant in Appeal No.831/1999 was an employee of the original opponent Nos.1&2/ appellants in Appeal No.851/1999. He had taken money back policy No.940475052 under the Salary Saving Scheme from original opponents Nos.3&4/appellants in Appeal No.855/1999 on 28/01/1996 and the insured amount was `1,00,000/-. The original opponents Nos.1&2 used to deduct `755/- from the salary of complainant as an amount of premium and used to deposit with original opponents Nos.3&4. This was the condition in the policy. The opponents Nos.1&2 have recovered the amount of the premium from the salary of complainant from December 1996 to May 1997, however, not deposited with the opponents Nos.3&4. The opponents Nos.3&4 though aware that they have not received the premium amount for the period December 1996 to May 1997 have not informed to the complainant. The complainant on asking to the opponent Nos.3&4 to pay the amount of the policy No.940475052, the opponents Nos.3&4 informed that the policy being lapsed because of non-payment of premium, they are not entitled for the claim of policy. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint praying an amount of `1,50,000/- along with other ancillary benefits from policy No.940475052 along with interest from December 1997, `5,000/- for mental agony and `2,000/- for costs.
6. The Forum after hearing the parties has passed an order dated 20/03/1999 jointly and severally to pay `50,000/- as compensation within 30 days of the order and an interest of 12% per annum from 01/08/1998 and a cost of `500/-.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 20/03/1999 the original complainant as well as the original opponent Nos.1&2 and original opponents Nos.3&4 have filed three separate appeals.
8. We heard Learned Counsel Advocate Mr.B.M. Patil for the original complainant and Learned Counsel Mr.Rajeev Chavan for opponents Nos.3&4 and Mr.Sambhaji Mane, employee of opponent Nos.1&2.
9. We have gone through the arguments of Learned Counsels and the evidence adduced by the parties. Admittedly, the original complainant had taken a policy No.940475052 from the opponents Nos.3&4 and the policy commencement date is 28/01/1996 and the sum assured is `1,00,000/-. The policy is money back policy under Salary Saving Scheme. Under the policy the opponent Nos.1&2 were legally bound to deduct the amount of premium from the salary of complainant and deposit the same to the opponents Nos.3&4. Similarly, the opponent Nos.1&2 have deducted the premium amount from the salary of complainant and deposited with the opponent Nos.3&4. However, from December 1996 to May 1997 the opponent Nos.1&2 deducted the amount of premium from the monthly salary of complainant but not deposited with the opponent Nos.3&4.
10. It is the contention of the opponents Nos.1&2 that the complainant had taken loan from the opponent Nos.1&2 and failed to repay the same and hence the opponent Nos.1&2 had deposited the amount of premium recovered from the complainant towards the recovery of loan amount and they had informed the same to the complainant. However, they have not adduced any evidence in support of their contention. Further the opponents Nos.1&2 had initiated a separate proceeding in the Co-operative Court against the complainant and the surety of the loan and obtained the order for attaching the property of complainant and surety and accordingly attached the property. Legally the opponents Nos.1&2 cannot divert the amount of premium deducted from the salary of the complainant towards loan recovery without informing the complainant.
11. The Learned Counsel for opponents Nos.3&4 contended that they have not received the monthly premium from December 1996 to May 1997 and hence the policy got lapsed and as the policy is lapsed they are not bound to pay the amount to the policy holder. Perusal of the policy condition shows that the condition No.11 of the policy makes it binding on the Insurance Company to inform the insured if the employer does not pay the monthly premium. It was the legal responsibility of the opponent Nos.3&4 to inform the insured that his employer had failed to deposit the premium amount. However, the opponent Nos.3&4 had not discharged their responsibility.
12. From the aforesaid facts, it proves beyond doubt that the opponent Nos.1&2 have illegally diverted the amount of monthly premium recovered from the deceased husband of complainant towards the recovery of loan amount and opponent Nos.3&4 had failed to inform the deceased husband of complainant that the opponent Nos.1&2 has not deposited the premium amount as per clause 11 of the policy. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Nos.1&2 and Opponent Nos.3&4. With a result, the policy of the deceased husband of the complainant got lapsed. The Forum has rightly held the opponents responsible jointly and severally. The policy value is `1,00,000/-. When the amount of the policy is `1,00,000/-, the Forum had awarded the amount of `50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. We find that the entire policy amount i.e. `1,00,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. will meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the opponent Nos.3&4 had stated that he has already deposited the amount of `50,000/- in the Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1) The appeal No.831/1999 is allowed.
2) The appeal No.851/1999 and 855/1999 are dismissed.
3) The amount deposited by the appellant in Appeal No.855/1999 be paid to the original complainant after the appeal period is over.
4) The original opponent Nos.1&2 do pay an amount of `50,000/- to the appellant/org. complainant along with an interest @12% p.a. from 01/08/1998 till the realisation of amount.
5) Under the circumstances, the parties to bear their costs.
6) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on
Dated 29th July 2011.
