BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 52/11.
THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Lakshmidevi W/o. Late. Shivappa, Age
major, Occ: Household, R/o. Adapur village, Tq. Lingasugur, now at H.No.B-41, Gandhi Maidana Camp, Hutt, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch
office, Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
2. Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office, Division Office, Raichur.
3. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Station
Road, Raichur.
4. The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Raichur Division, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to make the payment of LIC of Rs. 50,000/-
along with bonus interest and other accrued interest.
Date of institution :- 25-05-11.
Notice served :- 11-08-11.
Date of disposal :- 25-01-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Mallangouda, Advocate.
Respondent No-1 to 3 represented by Sri. Y. Srikanth, Advocate.
Respondent No-4 represented by Sri. A.S. Malipatil.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
By Sri. Gururaj, Member
JUDGEMENT
This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Laksmidevi W/o. Late Shivappa against the four Respondents (1) Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office Sindhanoor, (2) Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch Office, Division office, Raichur, (3) The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Station Road, Raichur and (4) The Divisional controller, NEKRTC, Raichur., The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant is the wife of one late Shivappa. The late Shivappa was an employee working as a conductor in NEKRTC Manvi, Depot under Respondent No-4. During his service he had obtained LIC policy from Respondent No-1 to 3 under salary saving scheme on a monthly premium amount of Rs. 169 per month Endowment Assurance with accident benefit policy bearing No. 661243380 dt. 10-03-1998 for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- The complainant is the nominee for the said policy. Respondent No-4 had undertaken for making the payment of premium amount of the above said policy to the Respondent No.1, out of salary amount of said Shivappa. The said Shivappa died on 13-08-2009 during the service by leaving behind his wife i.e, complainant as his legal heir as a nominee of the said policy. After his death the complainant has submitted death claim application, original policy, death certificate and with all required documents to the Respondent No-1 for getting the death claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- and available bonus and benefits from the above said policy of late Shivappa. After the receipt of the death claim application the Respondent No-1 has not settled the matter and even not cared to reply. But utter surprisingly, all of a sudden the Respondent No-2 send a letter on 01-12-2009 to the complainant stating that, premium under policy are received from March-1998 to March 1999 only hence nothing is payable under this policy and further stated that, the policy bond have been retained with them. Further it is the case of the complainant that, after receipt of the repudiation/letter dt. 01-12-2009 the complainant has send another letter dt. 24-06-2011 to the Respondent No-3 and requested to reconsider the death claim application but even after receipt of the said letter the Respondent No-3 has not at all settled the matter or replied to the said letter. The policy in question is opted under Salary Saving Scheme as such the Respondent no-4 being the employer of the deceased Shivappa, the said employer has undertaken to make the payment of premium amount directly to the Respondent no-1 out of the salary of the deceased. The Respondent No-4 has also acted as an agent of Respondent No- 1 to 3. Even in spite of several requests and demands made by the complainant Respondent No- 1 to 3 have not settled the claim. Even the Respondent No-4 he being an employer he has not made any efforts to settle the claim. The act of the Respondents is gross deficiency in service and because of this she has sustained huge loss, mental agony and hardship. Hence she sought the reliefs of Rs. 50,000/- towards death claim amount and its vested bonus, interest and mental agony shock damages etc., of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have appeared through their respective counsels. The Respondent No- 3 has filed his written version on its behalf and on behalf of Respondent No- 1 and 2. Respondent No-4 is also filed his written version through his counsel. In the written statement the Respondents 1 to 4 have admitted that late Shivappa the life assured was an employee under Respondent NO-4 and he had taken Endowment Assurance policy bearing No. 661243380 dt. 10-03-1998 for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/.
The Respondent No- 1 to 3 in their written version mainly contended that, the deceased Shivappa has assured as “Badli Employee” working as a conductor at NEKRTC Manvi Depot and policy was initially received at Sindhanoor Branch and later received by Raichur Branch. The premiums under the said policy have been received from March-1998 to February-1999 only and subsequent premiums were not recovered from the Respondent No-4 which is well within the knowledge of deceased life assured, as such the policy was under lapsed condition at the time of his death. Nothing is payable under the policy. Regarding non receipt of the premiums from the employer of the deceased i.e, NEKRTC these Respondents have given information to the complainant there is no question of deficiency of service by these Respondents. Non payment of regular premium is negligence on the part of the complainant therefore no question of mental agony and damages to be paid by this Respondents. Neither the Respondent No-4 nor the deceased or his successors have due premium to us, therefore burden, liability and negligence on the deceased and Respondent No-4. Under such circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of these Respondents. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The Respondent No-4 in his written version has contended that, the deceased employee working as a trainee employee and as per the law trainee employee will get only monthly stipend not as a monthly salary. He has not having any kind of leave under the trainee period, if the trainee employee is absent from service under the training period he will not get any remuneration stipend therefore question of payment of LIC premium not arise during the absent period. There is no any binding agreement between the deceased, LIC and NEKRTC towards decduction of the premium amount from the salary of the deceased and remitting to the LIC when there was no salary in the absenteeism period then, this Respndnet is not liable to pay any relief sought by the complainant. As per Minimum Sages Act 255 of the salary has to be deducted and more than 25% salary cannot be deducted. Further it is contended that, as per the request of the employee i.e, deceased Shivappa the LIC premium was deducted from the salary and same has been remitted to the LIC. When his salary is not drawn due to the absent the premium was not remitted to the LIC. Further it is contended that, deceased Shivappa was appointed in NEKRTC as a trainee conductor and trainee period is from 23-08-97 to 23-12-2000 during the trainee period he was getting stipend out of which no deduction can be made except statutory deduction. The LIC premium is not a statutory deduction only on his request premium was deducted from March 1998 to March 1999 from his salary. Under the above circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of this Respondent. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the complaint among other grounds.
4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In-rebuttal on behalf of Respondent No- 1 to 3 the sworn-affidavit of Administrative Officer (Legal) Respondent No-3 is filed by way of examination-in-chief and noted as RW-1. The Respondent No-4 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit of Assistant Account Officer he was noted as RW-2.
5. The complainant has filed (4) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-4 which are (1) Xerox copy of LIC Bond at Ex.P-1, (2) Death Certificate dt.08-09-2009 marked at Ex.P-2, (3) letter from Respondent office of Raichur dt. 01-12-2009 marked at Ex.P-3, (4) Letter from complainant to Respondent No-3 dt. 24-06-2011 marked at Ex.P-4. Similarly three documents filed by the Respondent Insurance Company they are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. Respondent No-4 has not filed any documents. Hence no documents were marked on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:
1. Whether the complainants proves deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 4 in not settling her claim under the policy, as alleged.?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought
for?
7. Our finding on the above points are as under:-
1. In the affirmative against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 and in negative against opposite No-4
2. As per final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
8. There is no dispute that late Shivappa S/o. Gyanappa husband of complainant had obtained LIC policy bearing No. 661243380 for the assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- commencing from 10-03-1998 for a period of 25 years and the said Shivappa died on 13-08-2009 during the service leaving behind him his wife Smt. Lakshmi i.e, complainant. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the complainant is the nominee of the LIC policy in question. Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainants have filed death claim before the Respondent No-1 to 3 and same was repudiated and intimated by the Respondents through letter dt. 01-12-2009 on the ground that is for non payment of premiums from March 1999.
9. After going through the pleadings of the parties, and documents filed by them, now the only point for our consideration is:
1. Whether the repudiation in respect of claim under the policy made by the Respondent No- 1 to 3 is proper one or not.
10. It is the case of the Respondents 1 to 3 that, the deceased Shivappa was not a permanent employee and he assured as a Badli (Apprentice) employee working as a conductor and he does not get the salary but he was getting the stipend only therefore the salary saving scheme does not apply to Apprentice employee as per the norms of the LIC Act. Further it is the case of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 is that, the premiums under the policy No. 661243380 have been received from March-1998 to February 1999 only and subsequent premiums were not received and same were due neither the deceased nor the relatives of the deceased or Respondent No-4 have paid the said premiums hence the policy of deceased lapsed. In this regard intimation has been given to the complainant under the above circumstances, there was no deficiency on their part and nothing is payable to the complainant and they have taken decision for to repudiate the claim of the complainant under the policy. On perusal of the Ex.P-1 the deceased Shivappa has taken the policy on 10-03-1998 and as per Ex.P-2 he has died on 13-08-2009. These two documents are clearly goes to show that, the deceased Shivappa has died after more than 11 years from the date of obtaining the policy. Further, on perusal of the Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3, it appears that, the Respondent No-4 has deducted the premium of the policy of deceased Shivappa upto June-1999, it means from the salary of the deceased the premium amount has been remitted to the Respondent No-1 upto June 1999, further this document also clearly goes to show that, the premiums of the deceased Shivappa has been paid by the Respondent No-4 from deducting the salary as under Salary Saving Scheme as contended by the complainant. Further, this fact, will also clearly goes to show that, though the employee deceased Shivappa was working as a conductor on Apprenticip. The Respondent No-4 has deducted the premium from the salary and remitted to the Respondent No-1 and same has been accepted by the LIC. Under such circumstances, the contention of the Respondent regarding his employment has not a permanent employee holds no good. If at all, all the Respondents are having any objections in this regard they should have taken it earlier date when the premiums have been accepted from April-1999 to June-1999 as per Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. Further we have also not accepted the contention of the Respondent No-4 regarding any written consent for to deduct the salary and accept the same by the Respondent No- 1 to 3 because the Respondent No-4 has deducted the premiums from the salary of the deceased and remitted to the LIC and same has been accepted by the Respondent No- 1 to 3. Hence we hold that, though there is no written permission for to deduct the premium from the deceased Shivappa’s salary during his lifetime, that cannot be termed as no salary saving scheme under which the policy has been taken and same was also not binding on the Respondent No-4.
11. Further on perusal of the Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3, it is very clear that, the premium amount of the deceased Shivappa has been paid only upto June 1999 and on perusal of the death certificate Ex.P-2, he was died on 13-08-09, it means he died almost all after more than 10 years from the date of last premium paid to the Respondent No-1 to 3 through Respondent No-4. Admittedly the premium amount was not deducted under the salary and same was not paid to the Respondent Insurance Company by the Respondent No-4 from June 1999 to 13-08-09 till the date of death of the deceased. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their written version at Para-7 contended that, they have given intimation to the complainant regarding non payment of premiums in respect of deceased policy. But, we do not find a single piece of documents or evidence to show that, they have made efforts to inform it regarding non payment of the premiums from July-1999 to August-2009 and there was also, no evidence regarding intimation given to the policy holder deceased Shivappa during his lifetime and there was also no intimation to the Respondent No-4 regarding non remittance of premium under the policy from the salary of Shivappa. Further we do not find any piece of evidence that, the employer was also not intimated to the deceased policyholder regarding non deduction of the premium amount pertaining to the policy and the employee was not a permanent employee and he was working an Apprentice and for that, the salary cannot be deducted and same cannot be remitted to the policy account as under Salary Saving Scheme. Under these circumstances, on the ground that, repudiating the policy for non payment of premium is not correct. In this regard, we have referred the following rulings (1) Rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6113/1995 decided on 28-09-1999, CPJ III 2009 at page 25 (NC), CPJ I 2009 Page 266 (NC), CPJ II 2009 314 Karnataka State Commission, CPJ II 2010 483 of Tamil Nadu State Commission, CPJ IV 2008 Page 560 Maharastra State Commission, and CPJ IV 2009 Page 239 Orissa State Commission. The dictums laid down under above rulings, it is very clear that, mere non remittance of premium by the employer to the Insurance Company cannot be a cause for repudiation of claim of the policyholder who has got policy under salary saving scheme. Hence we have followed the principles of above said rulings and applied those principles to the present case and come to the conclusion that, the repudiation made on the sole ground of non payment of premium from June-1999 to August-2009 is improper and illegal one.
12. Further, it is worthwhile to note here that, on perusal of Ex.P-3 repudiation letter dt. 01-12-2009, it is very clear that, the repudiation of the claim of the complainant has been made only on the ground that, the premiums not paid from March-1999 and for that, reason the claim has been repudiated. But it is worthwhile to note here that, in the written version the Respondents 1 to 3 have contended that, they have repudiated the claim as the deceased was not the permanent employee and he was working as a conductor on Apprentice basis. This version of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 is also clearly goes to show that, they are not firm and particular about their repudiation of the claim of the complainant. Since they are the persons one who have taken the responsibility of making the loss to the life of deceased by accepting the premium they have to inform the deceased regarding non payment of premium during his lifetime and even after his death to the nominee. But they have not made so; on the contrary they have repudiated the claim of the deceased Shivappa, when the complainant has approached to them to settle the claim. Under such circumstances, the contention of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. The Respondent No-4 though he is an employer he cannot deduct the salary unless otherwise the employee has worked under him throughout the month and for to make the payment of the salary but here in the case we are not made available any documents to show that, before the death of Shivappa how many months/years he has worked under the Respondent No-4 and how many days/month & year he was taken the salary from the Respondent no-4. Under such circumstances, we cannot blame for the Respondent No-4 for non remittance of the premiums to the Respondent No-1 to3 by deducting in the salary. On the other hand, the Respondent No- 1 to 3 have also not made available any documents to show that, they have made efforts to inform the either employer or deceased, or to complainant about the non payment of the premiums, without such information they cannot repudiate the claim as per number of dictums laid down by the various Hon’ble Courts including Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, we hold that, the case against the Respondent No-4 regarding deficiency in service is concerned, is not proved.
13. Under the above circumstances and viewing from all the angles the contention taken by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 regarding repudiation of the claim of the complainant is concerned, holds no good, hence we have rejected the same. So, to this extent we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No- 1 to 3. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
14. In view of our discussions and finding on Point NO-1 holding that the claim under policy is proper one, hence the complainant is entitled for to get death claim amount of Rs. 50,000/- and along with accrued bonus, other benefits along with future interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.. Further, we have decided to award an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and hardship etc., in this view of the matter we pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
The Respondent No.1 to 3 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- in respect of death claim amount of the policy bearing No. 661243380 dt. 10-03-1998 with accrued bonus other benefits along with future interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount on total sum of Rs. 55,000/-
The complaint against the Respondent No-4 is dismissed.
The Respondent No. 1 to 3 shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-01-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
