The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor V/S Smt. Mallamma W/o. Late Ramappa, HGM Hutti, Lingasugur - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/61

Smt. Mallamma W/o. Late Ramappa, HGM Hutti, Lingasugur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri. Gourish

29 Oct 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/61

Smt. Mallamma W/o. Late Ramappa, HGM Hutti, Lingasugur						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines, Co. Ltd., Hutt. The Divisinal 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. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Mallamma against the three Respondents (1) The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India. Branch Office Sindhanoor, (2) The Divisional Manager LIC of India, Raichur and (3) The General Manager Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of Ramappa who was an employee working as under ground labour bearing Token No. 2943 (VS) under the employment of Respondent No-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti. During his service he had obtained several LIC policies from Respondent No- 1 under salary saving scheme and some of them have settled accept the Policy No. 661362157 commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years. Respondent No-3 had undertaken for making the payment of premium amount of the above said policies to the Respondent No.1, out of salary amount of said Ramappa. The said Ramappa died on 10-07-07 during the service leaving behind him the complainant as his legal heir and nominee of the said policy. After his death the complainant has submitted original policy bond and other relevant records to Respondent No-1on 10-8-07 for settlement of the said policy amount and also made several requests to Respondent No- 1 & 2 for making payment of the above said policy through letter dt. 01-12-08 and 10-05-10. In-spite of service of said letter Respondent No-1 & 2 have not taken any steps to settle her claim. Hence she got issued legal notice through her counsel on 18-06-10 by RPAD. After service of the legal notice the Respondent No-1 & 2 have replied through their letters dt. 27-06-10 and 01-07-10 respectively. The Respondent has replied that, the policy is lapsed condition for non payment of installment and the Respondent No-3 has not replied. That the reply given by the Respondent No-1 is just to save the liability of payment of the above said policy amount. Earlier to the said notice neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent Nos- 2 & 3 in this regard. This attitude of the Respondents discloses that, there is a malafide intention of the Respondents. Further it is contended that, the Respondent No-3 being the employer of the deceased and who has undertaken to make the payment of premium of the above said policy out of the salary amount, he has also not responded property hence he is also jointly and severally responsible to answer the claim of the complainant. The Respondents neither settled her claim nor replied to her notice, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons she has sought for direction to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to make payment of LIC policy amount along with bonus interest and other benefits and also for Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost for deficiency of service. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-2 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-1 through memo dt. 15-09-10. Respondent No-3 has filed a separate written version. In the written statement the Respondents 1 & 2 have admitted that late Ramappa the life assured had taken the policy No. 661362157 along with other policies commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years under salary saving scheme. Further it is contended that, the premium pertaining to the said policy were paid only for two years and there was an irregularity in making payment of premium amount. After making enquiry it was told that, the life assured was suffering from tuberculosis and not attending the duty for that reason premium were not paid and policy was not in force as on the date of death. Policy had not acquired any value and nothing was payable the same fact was also informed to the complainant. Under such circumstances, the allegations of the complainant are baseless, hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Respondent NO-3 has filed written version contending that they have regularly remitted the premiums of late Ramappa to the LIC whenever his wages is sufficient. Thereafter non-availability of sufficient wages the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. The said fact was being regularly informed to the employee when he took his monthly wage-slip. The Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company could not deduct premium regularly from the salary of the employee because his earnings were not enough to recover the LIC premium since deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions under Payment of Wages Act. Therefore the Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking given to LIC as such the company is not liable either for damages or compensation as sought for. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent No-3. 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 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent NO-3 has not submitted any evidence. In their affidavit-evidence they have reiterated their stand in the complaint and written version respectively. The complainant has filed (8) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. Death certificate of Ramappa marked at Ex.P-1, Office copy of letter of complainant dt. 01-12-08 with two courier receipts marked at Ex.P-2, Ex.P-2(1) & Ex.P-2(2), Copy of the letter dt. 10-05-10 written by complainant to the Respondent NO-2 along with courier receipts marked at Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-3(1), Office copy of legal notice dt. 18-06-10 with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement marked at Ex.P-4, Ex.P-4(1) to Ex.P-4(3) and Ex.P-5(1) respectively, The letters dt. 27-06-10 and 01-07-10 written by the Respondent to the complainant counsel are marked at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, Copy of the policy is marked at Ex.P-8. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed photo-stat copy of Form No.4 issued by hospital authority is marked at Ex.R-1 and letter dt. 29-08-07 at Ex.R-2. The Respondent NO-3 has not filed any documents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 & 2 in not settling her claim under the policy, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Ramappa the husband of the complainant had obtained LIC Policy No. 661362157 commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years under salary saving scheme and the said Ramappa died on 10-07-07. It is not disputed by the Respondents 1 & 2 that the complainant is the nominee of the LIC policy. The complainant has filed death certificate at Ex.P-1 showing the death of her husband Ramappa on 10-07-07. The complainant has also filed office copy of the letter dt. 01-12-08 at Ex.P-2 and dt. 10-05-10 at Ex.P-3 addressed to the Respondent No-2 for settlement of LIC policy sent through Professional Courier Receipts at Ex.P-2(1) and Ex.P.3 (1) & (2). 8. There is no dispute that late Ramappa was an employee working under Respondent NO-2 and he had taken Insurance Policy in-question under Salary Saving Scheme and this Ramappa died on 10-07-07 and that the present complainant is the nominee of the life assured. The complainant has produced Insurance Policy Bond at Ex.P-8. It shows the insurance policy was taken on 25-08-2000 premium payable was Rs,. 105/- p.m. Sum assured is Rs. 25,000/. 9. The Insurance Company/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the written statement have contended that, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the said policy was having so many gaps. Further on perusal of Ex.P-6 the letter dt. 26-07-10 written by Respondent No-1 Branch Manager to the Advocate for complainant the gaps appears as under. 1) Gaps (1) In September 2001. 2) Gaps (11) From October 2002 to August-2003. Total 12 Gaps 10. Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines in their written version have stated that they have regularly remitted the premium of employee-late Ramappa to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of sufficient wages of the said Ramappa to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC and this fact was being regularly informed to late Ramappa and he had also knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. Except this bare contention the Respondent No-3 has not produced any scrap of paper to substantiate that the non-deduction of the premium amount due to insufficient salary has been made known to the policyholder/their employee. What prevented Respondent NO-3 Company from producing the same is not forth coming. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the non-deduction of the premium amount has been made known to the employee policyholder. 11. As stated above the Respondent No-1 & 2 Corporation in the written version have contended that they have repudiated the claim as the said policy was having so many gaps and same was also appeared in Ex.P-6 i.e, letter dt. 27-06-10. From the gaps as shown in the Ex.P-6, it shows that there are in all (12) gaps. The First gap comprises (1) month i.e, for September 2001, Second gap consisting of (11) months from October-2202 to September-2003. It further shows that after the expiry of the first gap of (1) month i.e, for the month of September-2001, the Respondent Company has received the policy premium from October-2001 till September 2002. Further it appears that the Respondent Insurance Company have accepted the subsequent premium amount after the expiry of the gaps period. No explanation is coming forth as to why they have accepted the premium for the subsequent months after the expiry of gap period. Even there is no whisper as to whether they have accepted the subsequent premium by way of revival of policy (due to non-payment of premium for the gaps period). Even there is no whisper or any material coming forth on behalf of Respondent Corporation that they had made any correspondence to Employer/Respondent No-3 or to the employee/policyholder with regard to non-payment of premium amount during gap period or after expiry of gap period. Similarly there is no whisper in the written version of Respondent No-3 the Employer that they had made correspondence with Respondent Corporation regarding non-deduction/remittance of policy premium of life assured due to insufficient of salary amount of insured as per the Payment of Wages Act as contended by them. This shows shirking of the responsibility on the part of the Respondent No-3. Had Respondent No-3 intimated either to Respondent Insurance Corporation or to employee-late life assured regarding non-deduction/remittance of premium amount on the ground of priority basis and for insufficient salary amount then the Respondent No-1 & 2 Corporation could have cautioned the life assurant from lapsing of the policy and that the life assured too could have directly paid the premium amount by avoid lapsing of the policy. 12. As seen from the written version of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Corporation, the act of Respondent in accepting the premium amount of subsequent months after expiry of gap period of non-payment of the premium, itself shows that the Respondent No-1 have soumoto revived the policy of the life assured. Because when according to the Respondent No-1 & 2 Insurance Corporation there was no payment of premium either by Respondent No-3 from salary deduction or directly paid by the life assured for the month of September-2001 and for (11) gaps period from October-2002 to Augutst-2003, then they ought not to have accepted the premium amount for October-2001 to September-2002 till the next gap period of (11) months (from September-2002 to August-2003). When the Respondent No-1 accepted the premium amount for subsequent period from October-2001 to September-2002 for more than (11) months, then how the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Insurance Corporation would say that the policy is in lapsed condition for non-payment of premium for the gap period. It appears that the Respondent Corporation without making correspondence either with Respondent No-3 or with the life assured for non remittance of premium amount for gaps period and having blindly accepted the premium amount for the subsequent period after the expiry of the gap period, now after the death of the policyholder when the complainant nominee claimed the policy amount they have repudiated her claim by giving dead-reason that the policy is in lapsed condition which is against their own acts and lacunas as stated earlier. When according to them policy is to be lapsed for non-payment of premium, then this principle would have applied for the First gap period of (1) month and they ought not to have accepted the premium amount for subsequent period from October-2001 onwards. When they have let loosed by giving life to the policy then how they could say now that the policy is in lapsed condition. Hence from the above discussion it goes without any hesitation that the Respondents 1 to 3 are deficient and negligent in their service. This our view is supported by the decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2006(1) Civil LJ Page No-1 (Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and others V/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker) Head Note which interalia reads as under:- ....employers being agents of insurer-Corporation not entitled to be discharged from contractual obligations on default on the part of employer-Employees not informed about consequences of non-payment of premium both by employer and Corporation-Therefore, judgements fixing liability on the Corporation needed no interference. In this background the attitude of the Respondents No-1 & 2 in not settling the claim of the complainant itself amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 13. The complainant has sought for direction for awarding policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- with accrued benefits thereon and for awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation damages and cost. So far as the 1st part of relief is concerned, the complainant is entitled for policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- with maturity benefits thereon from Respondent No-1 & 2 Insurance Corporation after deducting the premiums due to the Insurance Corporation. So far as the 2nd part relief of awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost, we hold that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met by awarding Rs. 3,000/-. Further, as regards the deficiency in service is concerned, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 3,000/-. 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 & 2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant together with bonus and other maturity after deducting the (12) months due premiums and also Rs. 3,000/- towards damages and cost of litigation. The Respondent No-1 & 2 are also liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service. The Respondent No-1 & 2 shall comply this order within a period of (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 29-10-10) 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. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Mallamma against the three Respondents (1) The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India. Branch Office Sindhanoor, (2) The Divisional Manager LIC of India, Raichur and (3) The General Manager Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant is the legally wedded wife of Ramappa who was an employee working as under ground labour bearing Token No. 2943 (VS) under the employment of Respondent No-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti. During his service he had obtained several LIC policies from Respondent No- 1 under salary saving scheme and some of them have settled accept the Policy No. 661362157 commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years. Respondent No-3 had undertaken for making the payment of premium amount of the above said policies to the Respondent No.1, out of salary amount of said Ramappa. The said Ramappa died on 10-07-07 during the service leaving behind him the complainant as his legal heir and nominee of the said policy. After his death the complainant has submitted original policy bond and other relevant records to Respondent No-1on 10-8-07 for settlement of the said policy amount and also made several requests to Respondent No- 1 & 2 for making payment of the above said policy through letter dt. 01-12-08 and 10-05-10. In-spite of service of said letter Respondent No-1 & 2 have not taken any steps to settle her claim. Hence she got issued legal notice through her counsel on 18-06-10 by RPAD. After service of the legal notice the Respondent No-1 & 2 have replied through their letters dt. 27-06-10 and 01-07-10 respectively. The Respondent has replied that, the policy is lapsed condition for non payment of installment and the Respondent No-3 has not replied. That the reply given by the Respondent No-1 is just to save the liability of payment of the above said policy amount. Earlier to the said notice neither the Respondent No-1 nor the Respondent Nos- 2 & 3 in this regard. This attitude of the Respondents discloses that, there is a malafide intention of the Respondents. Further it is contended that, the Respondent No-3 being the employer of the deceased and who has undertaken to make the payment of premium of the above said policy out of the salary amount, he has also not responded property hence he is also jointly and severally responsible to answer the claim of the complainant. The Respondents neither settled her claim nor replied to her notice, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. Hence for all these reasons she has sought for direction to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to make payment of LIC policy amount along with bonus interest and other benefits and also for Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost for deficiency of service. 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No-2 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-1 through memo dt. 15-09-10. Respondent No-3 has filed a separate written version. In the written statement the Respondents 1 & 2 have admitted that late Ramappa the life assured had taken the policy No. 661362157 along with other policies commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years under salary saving scheme. Further it is contended that, the premium pertaining to the said policy were paid only for two years and there was an irregularity in making payment of premium amount. After making enquiry it was told that, the life assured was suffering from tuberculosis and not attending the duty for that reason premium were not paid and policy was not in force as on the date of death. Policy had not acquired any value and nothing was payable the same fact was also informed to the complainant. Under such circumstances, the allegations of the complainant are baseless, hence for all these reasons the Respondents No- 1 & 2 have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Respondent NO-3 has filed written version contending that they have regularly remitted the premiums of late Ramappa to the LIC whenever his wages is sufficient. Thereafter non-availability of sufficient wages the premium could not be remitted to the LIC. The said fact was being regularly informed to the employee when he took his monthly wage-slip. The Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines Company could not deduct premium regularly from the salary of the employee because his earnings were not enough to recover the LIC premium since deductions are to be made on the basis of priority as per the provisions under Payment of Wages Act. Therefore the Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., is neither negligent nor violated any alleged undertaking given to LIC as such the company is not liable either for damages or compensation as sought for. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-3 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent No-3. 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 & 2 the sworn-affidavit of Respondent No-2 is filed by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent NO-3 has not submitted any evidence. In their affidavit-evidence they have reiterated their stand in the complaint and written version respectively. The complainant has filed (8) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-8. Death certificate of Ramappa marked at Ex.P-1, Office copy of letter of complainant dt. 01-12-08 with two courier receipts marked at Ex.P-2, Ex.P-2(1) & Ex.P-2(2), Copy of the letter dt. 10-05-10 written by complainant to the Respondent NO-2 along with courier receipts marked at Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-3(1), Office copy of legal notice dt. 18-06-10 with postal receipts and postal acknowledgement marked at Ex.P-4, Ex.P-4(1) to Ex.P-4(3) and Ex.P-5(1) respectively, The letters dt. 27-06-10 and 01-07-10 written by the Respondent to the complainant counsel are marked at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, Copy of the policy is marked at Ex.P-8. The Respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed photo-stat copy of Form No.4 issued by hospital authority is marked at Ex.R-1 and letter dt. 29-08-07 at Ex.R-2. The Respondent NO-3 has not filed any documents. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 & 2 in not settling her claim under the policy, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Ramappa the husband of the complainant had obtained LIC Policy No. 661362157 commencing from 28-08-2000 for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of (20) years under salary saving scheme and the said Ramappa died on 10-07-07. It is not disputed by the Respondents 1 & 2 that the complainant is the nominee of the LIC policy. The complainant has filed death certificate at Ex.P-1 showing the death of her husband Ramappa on 10-07-07. The complainant has also filed office copy of the letter dt. 01-12-08 at Ex.P-2 and dt. 10-05-10 at Ex.P-3 addressed to the Respondent No-2 for settlement of LIC policy sent through Professional Courier Receipts at Ex.P-2(1) and Ex.P.3 (1) & (2). 8. There is no dispute that late Ramappa was an employee working under Respondent NO-2 and he had taken Insurance Policy in-question under Salary Saving Scheme and this Ramappa died on 10-07-07 and that the present complainant is the nominee of the life assured. The complainant has produced Insurance Policy Bond at Ex.P-8. It shows the insurance policy was taken on 25-08-2000 premium payable was Rs,. 105/- p.m. Sum assured is Rs. 25,000/. 9. The Insurance Company/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the written statement have contended that, the claim of the complainant was repudiated as the said policy was having so many gaps. Further on perusal of Ex.P-6 the letter dt. 26-07-10 written by Respondent No-1 Branch Manager to the Advocate for complainant the gaps appears as under. 1) Gaps (1) In September 2001. 2) Gaps (11) From October 2002 to August-2003. Total 12 Gaps 10. Respondent NO-3 Hutti Gold Mines in their written version have stated that they have regularly remitted the premium of employee-late Ramappa to the LIC whenever his wages were sufficient. Thereafter due to non-availability of sufficient wages of the said Ramappa to pay the premium, the premium could not be remitted to the LIC and this fact was being regularly informed to late Ramappa and he had also knowledge of non-payment of premium when he took his monthly wage slip. Except this bare contention the Respondent No-3 has not produced any scrap of paper to substantiate that the non-deduction of the premium amount due to insufficient salary has been made known to the policyholder/their employee. What prevented Respondent NO-3 Company from producing the same is not forth coming. In the absence of the same it cannot be said that the non-deduction of the premium amount has been made known to the employee policyholder. 11. As stated above the Respondent No-1 & 2 Corporation in the written version have contended that they have repudiated the claim as the said policy was having so many gaps and same was also appeared in Ex.P-6 i.e, letter dt. 27-06-10. From the gaps as shown in the Ex.P-6, it shows that there are in all (12) gaps. The First gap comprises (1) month i.e, for September 2001, Second gap consisting of (11) months from October-2202 to September-2003. It further shows that after the expiry of the first gap of (1) month i.e, for the month of September-2001, the Respondent Company has received the policy premium from October-2001 till September 2002. Further it appears that the Respondent Insurance Company have accepted the subsequent premium amount after the expiry of the gaps period. No explanation is coming forth as to why they have accepted the premium for the subsequent months after the expiry of gap period. Even there is no whisper as to whether they have accepted the subsequent premium by way of revival of policy (due to non-payment of premium for the gaps period). Even there is no whisper or any material coming forth on behalf of Respondent Corporation that they had made any correspondence to Employer/Respondent No-3 or to the employee/policyholder with regard to non-payment of premium amount during gap period or after expiry of gap period. Similarly there is no whisper in the written version of Respondent No-3 the Employer that they had made correspondence with Respondent Corporation regarding non-deduction/remittance of policy premium of life assured due to insufficient of salary amount of insured as per the Payment of Wages Act as contended by them. This shows shirking of the responsibility on the part of the Respondent No-3. Had Respondent No-3 intimated either to Respondent Insurance Corporation or to employee-late life assured regarding non-deduction/remittance of premium amount on the ground of priority basis and for insufficient salary amount then the Respondent No-1 & 2 Corporation could have cautioned the life assurant from lapsing of the policy and that the life assured too could have directly paid the premium amount by avoid lapsing of the policy. 12. As seen from the written version of the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Corporation, the act of Respondent in accepting the premium amount of subsequent months after expiry of gap period of non-payment of the premium, itself shows that the Respondent No-1 have soumoto revived the policy of the life assured. Because when according to the Respondent No-1 & 2 Insurance Corporation there was no payment of premium either by Respondent No-3 from salary deduction or directly paid by the life assured for the month of September-2001 and for (11) gaps period from October-2002 to Augutst-2003, then they ought not to have accepted the premium amount for October-2001 to September-2002 till the next gap period of (11) months (from September-2002 to August-2003). When the Respondent No-1 accepted the premium amount for subsequent period from October-2001 to September-2002 for more than (11) months, then how the Respondent No- 1 & 2 Insurance Corporation would say that the policy is in lapsed condition for non-payment of premium for the gap period. It appears that the Respondent Corporation without making correspondence either with Respondent No-3 or with the life assured for non remittance of premium amount for gaps period and having blindly accepted the premium amount for the subsequent period after the expiry of the gap period, now after the death of the policyholder when the complainant nominee claimed the policy amount they have repudiated her claim by giving dead-reason that the policy is in lapsed condition which is against their own acts and lacunas as stated earlier. When according to them policy is to be lapsed for non-payment of premium, then this principle would have applied for the First gap period of (1) month and they ought not to have accepted the premium amount for subsequent period from October-2001 onwards. When they have let loosed by giving life to the policy then how they could say now that the policy is in lapsed condition. Hence from the above discussion it goes without any hesitation that the Respondents 1 to 3 are deficient and negligent in their service. This our view is supported by the decision of Honble Supreme Court reported in 2006(1) Civil LJ Page No-1 (Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and others V/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker) Head Note which interalia reads as under:- ....employers being agents of insurer-Corporation not entitled to be discharged from contractual obligations on default on the part of employer-Employees not informed about consequences of non-payment of premium both by employer and Corporation-Therefore, judgements fixing liability on the Corporation needed no interference. In this background the attitude of the Respondents No-1 & 2 in not settling the claim of the complainant itself amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 13. The complainant has sought for direction for awarding policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- with accrued benefits thereon and for awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation damages and cost. So far as the 1st part of relief is concerned, the complainant is entitled for policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- with maturity benefits thereon from Respondent No-1 & 2 Insurance Corporation after deducting the premiums due to the Insurance Corporation. So far as the 2nd part relief of awarding Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost, we hold that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met by awarding Rs. 3,000/-. Further, as regards the deficiency in service is concerned, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 3,000/-. 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 & 2 Insurance Company is directed to pay the policy amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant together with bonus and other maturity after deducting the (12) months due premiums and also Rs. 3,000/- towards damages and cost of litigation. The Respondent No-1 & 2 are also liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service. The Respondent No-1 & 2 shall comply this order within a period of (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 29-10-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.