Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/40/2019

Minor D.Balvin Raju, S/o Late D.Yesupadham, rep. by his mother J.Bhagya lakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K.Sathya Moorthy

28 Nov 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 22-03-2019                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date:  28-11-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                               Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.40/2019

Between

Minor D. Balvin Raju,

S/o. Late D. Yesupadham, Aged about 15 years, Student,

 Rep. by his mother as natural Guardian Smt. J. Bhagyalakshmi,

W/o. Late D. Yesupadham, aged about 41 years, Widow,

residing at Pasumanda Village, Naraharipeta Post,

Gudipala Mandal,Chittoor District,

Aadhaaar No: 4607 9935 1553, Phone No: 8019428379.                     … Complainant

 

And

The Branch Manager, LIC of India,

Branch Office-2, BNPL Code No.68,

D.No.6-1-69/A2, Krishna Towers,

2^nd  & 3^rd Floor, Near Varadaraj Swamy Temple,

K.T.Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District – 517507.                                    … Opposite party

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 13.11.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.K.Sathya Moorthy, counsel for the complainant and Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging as follows:- The deceased D.Yesupadham is the father of the complainant, while the deceased was working as constable in Police Department at West Police Station, Tirupati, he obtained 13 years term policy bearing No.842257676 on 28.03.2015 from the opposite party mentioning the complainant as a nominee. The maturity date was 28.03.2028 for sum assured Rs.2,50,000/-. The monthly premium is Rs.1,758.75Ps. The monthly premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased by salary disbursement authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Urban Police, Tirupati. The deceased died on 25.01.2018. The complainant being nominee made a claim regarding the insurance amount. The deceased obtained some other policies bearing Nos. 842159596 on 28.03.2011, 842129815 on 20.03.2010, 842041731 on 28.03.2006 and 841962978 on 20.03.2003 respectively and all the policies were cleared by the LIC except the subject policy bearing No. 842257676. The opposite party raised objections that ‘nothing payable’ due to non- receipt of premiums. The policy has not acquired any paid up value. Hence policy is in lapsed condition and hence nothing is payable under the policy and the same was intimated by the opposite party through letter dt: 04.09.2018 to the complainant. On receiving the letter by the complainant, he approached the concerned salary disbursement authority of police department and informed about the objections of opposite party and submitted the copy of the letter. The Administrative Officer, Urban District Police Office, Tirupati issued a certificate certifying that deceased died on 25.01.2018 due to ill-health and the premium amounts recovered from his salary for the period from July 2015 to January 2018 in respect of subject policy. The complainant approached the opposite party and submitted the certificate and requested to pay the claimed amount. The opposite party has issued a letter to Administrative Officer, Pay Section, SP Office, Tirupati stating that the death claim is pending for want of recovery of gap premiums for the months of 05/2015 and 06 /2015. Further they asked confirmation about deduction of premium from the salary of the employee and if not deducted, mention the reasons for non-recovering of premium for May and June, 2015. On receipt of letter, the Administrative Officer, Pay Section, SP Office, Tirupati issued reply letter dt: 10.12.2018 to the opposite party stating that, recovery towards LIC premium with regard to the subject policy commenced from deceased salary from July, 2015 paid on 01.08.2015 and no LIC premium recovery made from the deceased salary for the month of May and June, 2015 as there was no communication to the SP Office. So it is the fault on part of the opposite party to communicate to the SP office regarding the recovery of premium for May and June, 2015. The opposite party did not immediately communicate to the SP Office regarding the deduction of May and June, 2015 premium. The opposite party ought not to have recovered subsequent installments from July 2015 till January, 2019 if really the premium of May and June, 2015 are not recovered. The opposite party ought to have recovered the two monthly premiums without continuing to recovery the subsequent monthly premium. If opposite party had intimated about the dues of May and June 2015 months to the SP Office, they would have deducted the same from the salary of the deceased. So, there is negligence on part of the opposite party in not informing about the dues. There is no fault about the policy holder. The opposite party cannot escape from the liability of paying death claim to the complainant. When the opposite party have recovered the subsequent monthly premium, the question of policy being lapsed does not arise.

           3. The complainant issued legal notice on 26.01.2019 calling upon the opposite party to settle the claim. The opposite party replied on 04.02.2019 stating that, the subject policy is in lapsed condition for consideration of death claim. They have received 33 monthly premiums amounts from March, 2015 to January, 2018. The opposite party has stated in the letter that, the policy holder has paid March, 2015 and April, 2015 premia and letter has been sent to the paying authority of policy holder on 05.05.2015 through DTDC courier requesting to recover premium amount from May, 2015. Immediately after receiving the letter dt: 04.02.2019 from opposite party, the complainant issued rejoinder dt: 16.02.2019 mentioning that as per letter dt: 10.12.2018 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tirupati to opposite party they have categorically stated that, there was no communication from the department of opposite party to the Police Department with regard to recovery of premium installments and accordingly no LIC recovery made from the salary of the deceased from May and June, 2015. The opposite party stated that, they have sent a letter through DTDC courier on 05.05.2015 but there is no proof to show that the letter reached SP Office. The opposite party simply trying to escape from the liability of settling the claim. Hence it is prayed to allow this complaint by directing the opposite party to settle the claim in respect of policy bearing No. 842257676 with future interest @ 18% and also award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency of service in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-           

           4. Written Version filed by opposite party contending as follows:-

                  At the outset, the complaint averments are denied except taking of subject policy by the deceased. There is no dispute as to the death of the deceased on 25.01.2018. However the complainant is called upon to prove that the deceased obtained other policies bearing Nos. 842159596 on 28.03.2011, 842129815 on 20.03.2010, 842041731 on 28.03.2006 and 841962978 on 20.03.2003 and that the policy amounts were settled after his death. The opposite party has not sanctioned policy claim amount payable to the complainant under the subject policy stating that nothing payable due to non- receipt of premium amounts for May and June, 2015. Hence the policy in lapsed condition and the same was intimated to the complainant through letter dt: 04.09.2018. On receiving the said letter, the complainant approached the concerned salary disbursement authority of Police Department and intimated about the same by giving the opposite party’s letter and on receiving the same the Administrative Officer, Urban District Police Office, Tirupati issued certificate certifying that, the deceased died on 25.01.2018. The subscriptions from July 2015 to January 2016, January 2016 to March 2016 and April 2016 to January 2018 were recovered from his salary. On receiving the said certificate complainant approached the opposite party and informed the same by submitting certificate and requested to settle policy benefits. On receiving the said certificate the opposite party has issued letter to the Police Department stating that, the death claim is pending for want of recovery of gap premiums for the months of May and June, 2015 which became due. The police department have given a reply dt: 10.12.2018 to the opposite party stating that, recovery towards LIC premiums commenced from July 2015 onwards and there was no communication to police department SP Office, no LIC recovery made from his salary from May and June, 2015.

          5. The legal notice dt:26.01.2019 is admitted. So also reply dt:04.02.2019 given by opposite party. The policy holder has paid March and April, 2015 premia and thereafter sent a letter to paying authority of the policy holder on 05.05.2015 through DTDC courier requesting them to recover and send the premium amounts from May 2015 onwards but, they received premium amount from July 2015 onwards till January 2018 only. The May and June, 2015 premia are not paid. The rejoinder issued by complainant is false. It is stated that, the deceased policy holder opted for salary deduction towards the payment of premium amounts. Initially the deceased life assured has paid premium in the months March and April of 2015. On 30.03.2015, the deceased has given a letter of authorization along with the addendum to the proposal for insurance under S.S.S. According to this, the policy holder undertakes that his premium will be paid through his paying authority by deduction of amount from his monthly salary. It shall be the responsibility of the policy holder to ensure that the installment premium is deducted from his salary and remitted to the Corporation. It is declared that the policy stands in lapsed condition if the due premium is not received by the corporation within 15 days of the due date and the policy holder being primarily responsible to keep the policy in force and shall remit the premium dues together with additional charges applicable for monthly payment with interest. In the event of the premium dues not remitted to the corporation either by the employer or by the policy holder, the policy will lapse and in that case the liability of the corporation will be restricted to the extent of premium amounts actually received.

          6. As per the Annexure-IA, addendum to the proposal for insurance under S.S.S. 

              The following are the conditions:

A) I agree that I shall be entirely responsible for keeping the policy to be issued by the Corporation in force by regular payment of premiums on due dates. I hereby authorize my employer to make a monthly deduction of premium amount.

 

B) As stated I shall be entirely responsible for keeping the policy to be issued by the Corporation in force by ensuring the payment of premium to the Corporation within the stipulated time. In the event of non -payment of premium to the Corporation by the employer, for whatever reasons, it shall be my responsibility to make the payment of the premiums directly to the corporation together with any additional charges as applicable for monthly payment of premium and with interest, if any, to keep the policy in force.

 

C) I agree that in the said policy becoming lapsed on account of the non- payment of the premiums to the Corporation within the event of stipulated time for whatever reasons, the liability of the Corporation will be limited and the Corporation shall not be held responsible for any claim beyond this liability as accrued to the said policy at the time of its lapsation.

 

           The deceased gave self-declaration dt:30.03.2015 stating that, the salary month from which the deduction is to be started and forwarded is May, 2015. On 05.05.2015, letters were addressed to Urban Police of Tirupati under S.S.S. authorization letters ( 26 in no) by opposite party. The said letters were couriered on the same day along with some other relevant letters which were mentioned in the concerned register at Page Nos. 71 and 72.There is no question of SP Office not receiving the letter dt:05.05.2015. In spite of said letter, the premium for May and June of 2015 were not recovered from the salary of the deceased and as such the policy became lapsed. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          7. The complainant being minor represented by his mother Smt.J. Bhagyalakshmi, and sue filed chief affidavit on behalf of the complainant and got marked Ex:A1 to A9. On behalf of the opposite party, Sri. T. Suresh, Branch Manager of opposite party filed his chief affidavit as R.W.I and marked Ex:B1 to B5. Both the parties filed their written arguments respectively and submitted oral arguments.

         8.The point for consideration is:-

               Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

                     9.Point:-   The complainant in the written arguments argued that, his late father of the D.Balvin Raju has obtained subject policy bearing No.842257676 on 28.03.2015 from opposite party office showing him as a nominee and the date of maturity of the policy was on 28.03.2028 for basic sum assured Rs.2,50,000/-. The monthly premium is Rs.1,758.75Ps. It is further submitted that the deceased has opted for recovery of premium from his monthly salary under S.S.S. and accordingly authorized disbursement authority i.e. SP, Urban Police District, Tirupati to recover the premium amount monthly from his salary. It is further argued that, the monthly premia were deducted from the salary of the deceased from July, 2015 onwards till January, 2018 i.e. the death of the deceased.

                      It is the contention of the complainant counsel that, there is no negligence on part of the complainant since he authorized the salary disbursement authority to deduct monthly premium from his salary and accordingly premium amounts were deducted from his salary. It is argued that, the contention of opposite party that May and June of 2015 premia are not paid and as such the policy has lapsed cannot be accepted since the SP Office has communicated to the opposite party with regard to the recovery of premium amounts. It is further argued that, the contention of opposite party that they addressed letter to the SP Office by way of courier with regard to payment of May and June of 2015 premiums by the deceased and that there was no communication from the SP Office is also not correct since the opposite party failed to file any proof regarding receipt of the said communication by SP Office.

                     10.  Coming to the documentary evidence there is no dispute regarding Ex:A1 which is copy of the policy bearing No.842257676 issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased. Ex:A2 is letter dt:04.09.2018 to the complainant stating that nothing is payable regarding death  claim due to non-receipt of premium amount resulting in lapsing of policy. Ex:A3 is certificate issued by Administrative Officer, Urban District Police Office, Tirupati showing the recovery of the premium amounts collected from the months of July 2015 till January, 2018 @ 1845 per month. Ex:A4 is letter addressed by Branch Manager opposite party to Administrative Officer, Pay Section, SP office, Tirupati informing that death claim is pending for want of recovery of premia for May and June of 2015 and it is stated that if the premia for those two months are not deducted, mention the reasons for non-recovery of two premiums. Ex:A5 is letter addressed by Superintendent of police, Urban Police District, Tirupati to opposite party stating that recovery commenced from salary of deceased from July, 2015 to 01.08.2015. Legal notice dt:26.01.2019 was issued by the complainant to the opposite party under Ex:A6. Ex:A7 is reply letter dt:04.02.2019 by opposite party to complainant advocate stating that, the subject policy was in lapsed condition since they have received only 33 monthly premiums from March 2015 to January, 2018. Further it is informed that they sent a letter to paying authority of the policy holder on 05.05.2015 through DTDC courier requesting them to recover and send the premium amounts to them for May and June 2015. But they have sent premium amount from July 2015 to January only. Hence the policy will be treated as lapsed for non-payment of premium amounts for the month of May and June of 2015. Ex:A8 is rejoinder notice issued by complainant to the opposite party                    dt: 16.02.2019. Ex:A9 is served copy of reply letter issued by the opposite party to complainant along with documents dt: 22.02.2019.

                     11. The opposite party marked five documents, Ex:B1 is equalent to Ex:A1. Ex:B2 is attested photo copy of letter of authorization under salary savings scheme given by deceased D.Yesupadam. Ex:B3 is attested photo copy of addendum to the proposal for insurance under SSS, LIC of India, Nellore Division dt: 30.05.2015. Ex:B4 is photo copy of extract of dispatch register dt:05.05.2015. Ex:B5 original copy of letter regarding salary deductions of employees.

                         As already stated by us there is no dispute as to the taking of subject policy by the deceased. It also not in dispute that, the premium amounts were recovered from the salary of the deceased from July, 2015 till 25.01.2018 i.e. date of death of the deceased. It is admitted that the deceased paid premia for the March, April of 2015 directly and thereafter opted for deduction of premium amounts from his salary by way of letter authorizing disbursement officer to deduct monthly premium amount from his monthly salary. The dispute is with regard to non-payment of premium amount for the month of May and June of 2015. The counsel for the opposite party argued that it is responsibility of the policy holder, to keep the policy in force by making the payment of premium to the corporation within the stipulated time. In the event of the non-payment of premium to the corporation by the employer for whatever reason, it shall be the responsibility of the policy holder to make the payment of premiums directly to the corporation together with any additional charges as applicable for delayed monthly payment of premium with interest if any to keep the policy in force. No doubt in the instant case, May and June of 2015 premium  amounts are not recovered by the disbursement authority of the deceased. The fact that May and June of 2015 premium amounts are not paid is mentioned in Ex:A4 and further the branch manager asked the Administrative Officer as per Ex:A4 to state  the reasons for non-recovery of premium for two months and for that the SP Office addressed a letter to LIC Office stating that, there was no communication to SP Office with regard to the recovery of premium amount for the month of May and June of 2015. Basing on the Ex:A5 it is argued by the complainant counsel that, the SP Office immediately responded to the LIC Office giving reason for not recovering May and June of 2015 premium amount from deceased salary. But thereafter opposite party has kept quite. The opposite party counsel relied upon Ex:A7 wherein it is stated that the opposite party has sent letter to paying authority of the policy holder on 05.05.2015 through DTDC courier requesting them to recover and send the premium from May, 2015 to them.

                    12. Though opposite party relied upon Ex:B5 and B4 in order to show that, letter was already communicated to SP Office through courier regarding  deduction of May and June of 2015 premium amounts, it cannot be presumed that the letter was received by the police office since no acknowledgment was filed by the opposite party. We are not inclined to accept argument of the opposite party counsel that Ex:B4 is the conclusive proof of  receipt of letter by SP Office as no acknowledgment is filed for the receipt of letter asking the SP Office to deduct the premiums for the disputed two months. Ex:B4 only shows that, certain letters were addressed with regard to certain policies of police department for recovery of premium amount from the policy holders salary but it has to be proved that, the SP Office, Tirupati received a letter for deduction of May and June of 2015 policy premium amounts from the deceased salary. Hence we hold that deceased policy holder cannot be faulted for not paying the two months premium. We therefore accept the condition of the complainant counsel that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party is not communicating to SP Office, Tirupati for deduction of May and June of 2015 premium amounts from the salary of the deceased. Hence the complainant is entitled for some compensation also due to deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed.

                          In the result, complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to settle the claim amount under the policy bearing No.842257676 i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. The opposite party further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant due to deficiency of service on their part in addition to sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) litigation expenses. The time for compliance of the order is six (6) weeks from the date of order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) also shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 28^th day of November, 2019.

            Sd/-                                                                                                         Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                           President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. J. Bhagyalakshmi (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri T. Suresh (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of LIC’s NEW ENDOWMENT PLAN POLICY bearing No. 842257676 issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased D. Yesupadam who is father of complainant. Commencement of Policy Dt: 28.03.2015.
	True copy of Letter (In the form of LIC of India, Nellore Division Letter Head) issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant. Dt: 04.09.2018.
	Photo copy of CERTIFICATE issued by the Administrative Officer, Urban District Police Office, Tirupati to the opposite Party.Dt: 22.11.2018.
	Photo copy of LETTER issued by the Opposite Party to the Administrative Officer, Pay Section, Urban District Police Office, Tirupati.
	Photo copy of LETTER addressed by the Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupati to the Opposite Party. Dt: 10.12.2018.
	Office copy of LEGAL NOTICE issued by the Complainant to the Opposite party. Dt: 26.01.2019.
	Served copy of REPLY LETTER issued by the opposite party to the complainant (True copy). Dt: 04.02.2019.
	Office copy of REJOINDER NOTICE issued by the complainant to the opposite party along with served postal acknowledgement, Dated 19.02.2019. Dt: 16.02.2019.
	Served copy of REPLY Letter (Legal Notice, Dt.16.02.2019 Regarding Death Claim Settlement of Late Sri D. Yesupadam) issued by the opposite party to the complainant along with documents (True copy). Dt: 22.02.2019.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of the POLICY ALONG WITH FILLED PROPOSAL FORM.
	Attested photo copy of the LETTER OF AUTHORISATION (UNDER SALARY SAVINGS SCHEME) given by Late D. Yesupadam.
	Attested photo copy of “ADDENDUM TO THE PROPOSAL FOR INSURANCE UNDER SSS” LIC of India, Nellore Division. Dt: 30.05.2015.
	Attested photo copy of the EXTRACT OF DISPATCH REGISTER Dt: 05.05.2015.
	Original copy of Letter regarding SALARY DEDUCTIONS OF EMPLOYEES (System generated).

                                         

                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party.