The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor V/S Smt. Laxmi @ Laxmibai W/o. Late Govindappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/88

Smt. Laxmi @ Laxmibai W/o. Late Govindappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. M. Mallangouda

06 Apr 2011

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/88

Smt. Laxmi @ Laxmibai W/o. Late Govindappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Laxmibai against the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India and opposite No-3 General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to make payment of assured sum of (7) LIC policies as noted in her complaint, with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she is the wife of deceased Govindappa, her husband Govindappa was an employee in opposite No-3s HGM Company. At his life time, he subscribed (7) LIC policies under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 from opposite No- 1 & 2. Thereafter said Govindappa died on 28-04-09. The complainant being the wife and nominee under the said policies, filed her claim petition with opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but they shown their negligence in settling her claim, opposite No-3 being an employer of deceased Govindappa has also not shown interest in settling her claim. As such, opposite Nos. 1 to 3 found deficiency in their services, accordingly, she filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in her complaint. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India, appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by admitting the fact of subscription of (7) LIC policies by deceased Govindappa as noted in the complaint under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 HGM Company. It further contended that, deceased Govindappa took VRS on 01-07-02, it was within his knowledge that, from the moment he took VRS, he will not be paid any salary by opposite No-3, the question of deduction of premium by opposite No-3 from his salary could not arise, giving intimation of non payment of premiums by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 also did not arise, as the Govindappa himself fully knowing well that, after taking VRS he is to be paid premiums directly to LIC. After his retirement neither complainant nor deceased Govindappa paid any premiums, hence all the said polices are in lapsed policies. No payment of premiums made within two years from the date of lapsed polices, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount under the said polices, there was no deficiency in its service, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. Opposite No-3 HGM Company Ltd., filed its written version by contending that, after taking VRS by deceased Govindappa from its company. He has to pay insurance premiums directly to LIC and also complainant is responsible for to make payment of LIC premiums, as there was no salary to be paid to Govindappa from the company. No deficiency in service on its part is committed, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, she is the wife and nominee under the LIC policies as shown at Sl.No. 1 to 7 in her complaint, which were subscribed by her husband Govindappa from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 and later said Govindappa died on 28-04-09, thereafter complaint being a nominee under the said policies filed her claim petition with all records before opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but opposite Nos-1 & 2 or opposite No-3 not shown their interest in settling her claim and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No-1 & 2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 8. Affidavit-evidence of the General Manager (Co-ordination) of opposite No-3 Company was filed, he was noted as RW-2. The document Ex.R-7 is marked. 9. In the present case some of the undisputed facts in between the parties are that: - 1. Complainant being the wife nominee of deceased Govindappa who subscribed (7) LIC policies at his lifetime from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 under salary deduction scheme of opposite No-3 and died on 28-04-09. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, before his death said Govindappa took VRS from his service on 01-07-02 from the company of opposite No-3. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, after VRS i.e from 01-07-02 till the death of Govindappa i.e, 28-04-09 premiums of all the (7) policies not paid by him. 10. In the light of these undisputed facts. Now the pints for our consideration before us is that, whether opposite No-3 the employer of Govindappa committed any fault in remitting LIC premiums from his salary to LIC of India. It appears from the records and evidence that, Govindappa took VRS on 01-07-02 from company. Opposite No-3 HGM, that, means to say that, Govindappa fully knowing well that, opposite No-3 cannot pay any insurance premiums of those (7) polices after 01-07-02 as there was no salary to be paid by opposite No-3 to him. As such, it is the duty of Govindappa to make payment of the premiums of all the said policies to LIC of India directly without giving any blame on opposite No-3, but Govindiappa not did so at his lifetime. It appears from the records that, he took VRS on 01-07-02, he died on 28-04-09 that means from 2002 to 2009 Govindappa not paid any premiums to LIC of India, in respect of the above said (7) policies. In such event, now we have to see as to whether the judgment referred by the learned advocate for complainant, reported in 2006 (1) Civil L.J. 1 Supreme Court, Chairman LIC Corporation and others V/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar is not helping the case of complainant. In the said case their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court, discussed the case wherein, the employer not remitted LIC premiums of his employee, out of the salary as undertook by him to LIC, non remittance of premiums was not intimated to the employee either by LIC of India or by employer, in such event their lordships of the Supreme Court, fixed the liability on LIC of India. 11. In the instant case, the facts of the complainants case are quite different to the facts stated in the above said cases. In the present case the husband of complainant by name Govindappa took VRS from opposite No-3 on 01-07-02. VRS means taking voluntary retirement by knowing well the future consequences of it, as he was not further more an employee of opposite No-3 Company. He took (7) LIC policies from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 on different dates with different assured sum. So Govindappa was having a knowledge on payment of future premiums till his death directly to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 by himself due to his VRS and not by opposite No-3. It is not disputed fact that, Govindappa not paid any premiums of any one of the (7) policies after 01-07-02 till his death dt. 8-04-09. In such circumstances, the learned advocate for opposite Nos- 1 & 2 relied on the judgments of the Honble Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 1251/08 vide Ex.R-4(1) and another judgment of Honble Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 2061/06 vide Ex.R-6. 12. In both the cases, the Honble Karnataka State Commission observed that, premiums not paid for more than (2) years then, the policies stands automatically lapsed. The facts discussed by their lordships of the Honble Karnataka State Commission. 13. In the instant case, complainant took VRS scheme on 01-07-02, thereafter more than (2) years i.e, till his death dt. 28-04-09, he not paid any premiums to LIC of India. In the said circumstances we are of the view that, non giving intimation of non payment of premiums by LIC of India to Govindappa does not arise for consideration, as such all the (7) policies stands automatically lapsed and complainant cannot claim any amount out of the said policies for any one of the reasons stated in her complaint, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and also on the part of opposite No-3, accordingly, she is not entitled for any of the relliefs as prayed in her complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-04-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Laxmibai against the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India and opposite No-3 General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to make payment of assured sum of (7) LIC policies as noted in her complaint, with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainants case are that, she is the wife of deceased Govindappa, her husband Govindappa was an employee in opposite No-3s HGM Company. At his life time, he subscribed (7) LIC policies under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 from opposite No- 1 & 2. Thereafter said Govindappa died on 28-04-09. The complainant being the wife and nominee under the said policies, filed her claim petition with opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but they shown their negligence in settling her claim, opposite No-3 being an employer of deceased Govindappa has also not shown interest in settling her claim. As such, opposite Nos. 1 to 3 found deficiency in their services, accordingly, she filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in her complaint. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India, appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by admitting the fact of subscription of (7) LIC policies by deceased Govindappa as noted in the complaint under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 HGM Company. It further contended that, deceased Govindappa took VRS on 01-07-02, it was within his knowledge that, from the moment he took VRS, he will not be paid any salary by opposite No-3, the question of deduction of premium by opposite No-3 from his salary could not arise, giving intimation of non payment of premiums by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 also did not arise, as the Govindappa himself fully knowing well that, after taking VRS he is to be paid premiums directly to LIC. After his retirement neither complainant nor deceased Govindappa paid any premiums, hence all the said polices are in lapsed policies. No payment of premiums made within two years from the date of lapsed polices, opposite Nos. 1 & 2 Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount under the said polices, there was no deficiency in its service, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. Opposite No-3 HGM Company Ltd., filed its written version by contending that, after taking VRS by deceased Govindappa from its company. He has to pay insurance premiums directly to LIC and also complainant is responsible for to make payment of LIC premiums, as there was no salary to be paid to Govindappa from the company. No deficiency in service on its part is committed, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, she is the wife and nominee under the LIC policies as shown at Sl.No. 1 to 7 in her complaint, which were subscribed by her husband Govindappa from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC of India under salary deduction scheme by opposite No-3 and later said Govindappa died on 28-04-09, thereafter complaint being a nominee under the said policies filed her claim petition with all records before opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but opposite Nos-1 & 2 or opposite No-3 not shown their interest in settling her claim and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No-1 & 2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 8. Affidavit-evidence of the General Manager (Co-ordination) of opposite No-3 Company was filed, he was noted as RW-2. The document Ex.R-7 is marked. 9. In the present case some of the undisputed facts in between the parties are that: - 1. Complainant being the wife nominee of deceased Govindappa who subscribed (7) LIC policies at his lifetime from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 under salary deduction scheme of opposite No-3 and died on 28-04-09. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, before his death said Govindappa took VRS from his service on 01-07-02 from the company of opposite No-3. 3. It is further undisputed fact that, after VRS i.e from 01-07-02 till the death of Govindappa i.e, 28-04-09 premiums of all the (7) policies not paid by him. 10. In the light of these undisputed facts. Now the pints for our consideration before us is that, whether opposite No-3 the employer of Govindappa committed any fault in remitting LIC premiums from his salary to LIC of India. It appears from the records and evidence that, Govindappa took VRS on 01-07-02 from company. Opposite No-3 HGM, that, means to say that, Govindappa fully knowing well that, opposite No-3 cannot pay any insurance premiums of those (7) polices after 01-07-02 as there was no salary to be paid by opposite No-3 to him. As such, it is the duty of Govindappa to make payment of the premiums of all the said policies to LIC of India directly without giving any blame on opposite No-3, but Govindiappa not did so at his lifetime. It appears from the records that, he took VRS on 01-07-02, he died on 28-04-09 that means from 2002 to 2009 Govindappa not paid any premiums to LIC of India, in respect of the above said (7) policies. In such event, now we have to see as to whether the judgment referred by the learned advocate for complainant, reported in 2006 (1) Civil L.J. 1 Supreme Court, Chairman LIC Corporation and others V/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar is not helping the case of complainant. In the said case their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court, discussed the case wherein, the employer not remitted LIC premiums of his employee, out of the salary as undertook by him to LIC, non remittance of premiums was not intimated to the employee either by LIC of India or by employer, in such event their lordships of the Supreme Court, fixed the liability on LIC of India. 11. In the instant case, the facts of the complainants case are quite different to the facts stated in the above said cases. In the present case the husband of complainant by name Govindappa took VRS from opposite No-3 on 01-07-02. VRS means taking voluntary retirement by knowing well the future consequences of it, as he was not further more an employee of opposite No-3 Company. He took (7) LIC policies from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 on different dates with different assured sum. So Govindappa was having a knowledge on payment of future premiums till his death directly to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 by himself due to his VRS and not by opposite No-3. It is not disputed fact that, Govindappa not paid any premiums of any one of the (7) policies after 01-07-02 till his death dt. 8-04-09. In such circumstances, the learned advocate for opposite Nos- 1 & 2 relied on the judgments of the Honble Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 1251/08 vide Ex.R-4(1) and another judgment of Honble Karnataka State Commission in Appeal No. 2061/06 vide Ex.R-6. 12. In both the cases, the Honble Karnataka State Commission observed that, premiums not paid for more than (2) years then, the policies stands automatically lapsed. The facts discussed by their lordships of the Honble Karnataka State Commission. 13. In the instant case, complainant took VRS scheme on 01-07-02, thereafter more than (2) years i.e, till his death dt. 28-04-09, he not paid any premiums to LIC of India. In the said circumstances we are of the view that, non giving intimation of non payment of premiums by LIC of India to Govindappa does not arise for consideration, as such all the (7) policies stands automatically lapsed and complainant cannot claim any amount out of the said policies for any one of the reasons stated in her complaint, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and also on the part of opposite No-3, accordingly, she is not entitled for any of the relliefs as prayed in her complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos. 1 & 2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-04-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.