The Branch Manager, LIC of India V/S Smt. Gangamma W/o. Late Amaranna - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/34

Smt. Gangamma W/o. Late Amaranna - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri. Mallangouda

29 Sep 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/34

Smt. Gangamma W/o. Late Amaranna						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, LIC of India						...........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 the complainant Smt. Gangamma against the Opposite LIC, Branch Office, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to make payment of LIC policies amount with bonus and other benefits, accrued and for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and cost with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she is legally wedded wife of late Amaranna who took three LIC polices under Salary Saving Scheme at his life time, she is the nominee under the said three policies. The employer of the complainant husband was deducting regular premiums from his salary. On 12-12-06 her husband Amaranna died leaving behind the complainant as his LRs and nominee of the said policies. After the death of her husband she requested the opposite to make payment of matured amount under three policies by oral and in-writing, but opposite denied her claim. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of this opposite and thereby she filed this complaint against opposite for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate filed written version by contending that the employer of Amaranna fails to deduct the premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The undertaking letter of the policyholder Amaranna fixes the responsibility of payment of premiums amount on him, hence the policies of said Amaranna lapsed. The complainant not filed required documents before it for to consider her request, accordingly there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with cost. 4. 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, her husband took three LIC policies at his life time from the opposites insurance company under salary saving scheme and after the death of her husband she being a nominee under the said three policies requested the opposites orally as well as in writing to make payment of the policies amount but opposites shows their negligence in settling her claim and thereby opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (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 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand the affidavit-evidence of Administrative Officer L & HPF of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW.1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 are marked. 7. In the instant case, opposite LIC admitted the holding of three policies by deceased Amaranna at his life time under the salary saving scheme. It is also admitted by it that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of Amaranna who is the nominee under all the three policies. 8. According to opposite these policies are in lapsed condition for non payment of premiums of those policies for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The complainant has not noticed as to how these policies became in lapsed condition it appears from the records of the opposite LIC which are at Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-7. That the deceased Amaranna was on medical leave without pay and thereby his employer not deducted premiums from his salary. In the said circumstances, the only point for our consideration is as to whether the opposite insurance company is liable to pay policies amount to the complainant, even though those three policies are in lapsed condition for non payment of four monthly premiums. 9. The learned advocate for opposite submitted before us that as per the personal agreement and undertaking of the Amaranna, it is his responsibility to make the payment of premiums of those policies regularly without default, in-spite of such undertaking employer of Amaranna failed to remit the premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006, in the said circumstances the LIC is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant under these policies there is no deficiency in service on its part. 10. On the other hand learned advocate for complainant submitted that non remittance of premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006 by the employer of Amaranna was not informed either to LIC or to Amaranna at his life time. In the same way LIC opposite also not informed the non remittance of premiums with regard to those three policies was not informed to Amaranna or to complainant. Under such circumstances the liability of opposite is to make payment of the policies amount to the complainant and if any grievances for non payment of installments is to be taken with the employer of Amaranna or otherwise at the time of making payment of the matured amount of those LIC policies opposite is at liberty to deduct the premiums of those four months. 11. In support of his submissions he relied the ruling reported in 2006 (I) Civil LJ1 Supreme Court, Chairman, LIC V/s. Rajivkumar Bhaskar, we have also referred a recent ruling reported in 2009(I) CCC 60 (NS) Branch Manager LIC of India V/s. Gousiabi. 12. On going through the principles of the said two rulings, their lordships have observed as corporation not entitled to be discharged from contractual obligations on default on the part of the employer, the employee is not informed abut the consequences of non payment of premiums both by employer and corporation. Therefore judgments fixing the liability on the corporation need not interference. In the instant case there are no documents from the side of the opposite LIC to show that the employer of Amaranna informed to Amaranna regarding non payment of premiums for the said months, as he availed medical leave without pay, In the similar way opposite LIC not placed any documents before us to show that it informed to Amaranna at his life time or to the present complainant, regarding default i.e, payment of premiums of those months. Records of opposite Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 are of the documents prepared after the death of Amaranna. 13. The facts and circumstances of this case are in similar to the facts and circumstances of the cases dealt of their lordships in the said rulings, as such we are of the view that opposite LIC cannot jurk its responsibility either on the shoulder of the employer of Amaranna or on the shoulder of Amaranna, as such, we are of the view that, it is the duty of the opposite LIC to make the payment of the matured value of the three policies of deceased Amaranna to the complainant who is the nominee under the said three policies. Rejecting the claim of complainant by the opposite LIC on the said ground is deficiency in its service towards the complainant , accordingly we answered in Point No.1 affirmative. 14. As regards to the payer of the complainant, the complainant is entitled for maturity value of Rs. 1,00,000/- under policy bearing No. 661189413 she is entitled for Rs. 50,000/- under the policy bearing No. 661200632 and also she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under policy bearing No. 661417442, totally she is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the said three policies, subject to deduction of monthly premiums of the said three policies for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. 15. We have noticed deficiency in service on the part of this opposite, accordingly the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposite under the head of deficiency in its service. 16. The complainant is also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite towards cost of this litigation, accordingly we answered Point No.2 POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- from the opposite subject to deductions premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The opposite LIC is given one month time from the date of this judgement to make such payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-09-09) 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 the complainant Smt. Gangamma against the Opposite LIC, Branch Office, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to make payment of LIC policies amount with bonus and other benefits, accrued and for to direct the opposite to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages and cost with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she is legally wedded wife of late Amaranna who took three LIC polices under Salary Saving Scheme at his life time, she is the nominee under the said three policies. The employer of the complainant husband was deducting regular premiums from his salary. On 12-12-06 her husband Amaranna died leaving behind the complainant as his LRs and nominee of the said policies. After the death of her husband she requested the opposite to make payment of matured amount under three policies by oral and in-writing, but opposite denied her claim. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of this opposite and thereby she filed this complaint against opposite for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate filed written version by contending that the employer of Amaranna fails to deduct the premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The undertaking letter of the policyholder Amaranna fixes the responsibility of payment of premiums amount on him, hence the policies of said Amaranna lapsed. The complainant not filed required documents before it for to consider her request, accordingly there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with cost. 4. 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, her husband took three LIC policies at his life time from the opposites insurance company under salary saving scheme and after the death of her husband she being a nominee under the said three policies requested the opposites orally as well as in writing to make payment of the policies amount but opposites shows their negligence in settling her claim and thereby opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order. (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 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 are marked. On the other hand the affidavit-evidence of Administrative Officer L & HPF of opposite was filed, he was noted as RW.1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-7 are marked. 7. In the instant case, opposite LIC admitted the holding of three policies by deceased Amaranna at his life time under the salary saving scheme. It is also admitted by it that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of Amaranna who is the nominee under all the three policies. 8. According to opposite these policies are in lapsed condition for non payment of premiums of those policies for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The complainant has not noticed as to how these policies became in lapsed condition it appears from the records of the opposite LIC which are at Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-7. That the deceased Amaranna was on medical leave without pay and thereby his employer not deducted premiums from his salary. In the said circumstances, the only point for our consideration is as to whether the opposite insurance company is liable to pay policies amount to the complainant, even though those three policies are in lapsed condition for non payment of four monthly premiums. 9. The learned advocate for opposite submitted before us that as per the personal agreement and undertaking of the Amaranna, it is his responsibility to make the payment of premiums of those policies regularly without default, in-spite of such undertaking employer of Amaranna failed to remit the premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006, in the said circumstances the LIC is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant under these policies there is no deficiency in service on its part. 10. On the other hand learned advocate for complainant submitted that non remittance of premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006 by the employer of Amaranna was not informed either to LIC or to Amaranna at his life time. In the same way LIC opposite also not informed the non remittance of premiums with regard to those three policies was not informed to Amaranna or to complainant. Under such circumstances the liability of opposite is to make payment of the policies amount to the complainant and if any grievances for non payment of installments is to be taken with the employer of Amaranna or otherwise at the time of making payment of the matured amount of those LIC policies opposite is at liberty to deduct the premiums of those four months. 11. In support of his submissions he relied the ruling reported in 2006 (I) Civil LJ1 Supreme Court, Chairman, LIC V/s. Rajivkumar Bhaskar, we have also referred a recent ruling reported in 2009(I) CCC 60 (NS) Branch Manager LIC of India V/s. Gousiabi. 12. On going through the principles of the said two rulings, their lordships have observed as corporation not entitled to be discharged from contractual obligations on default on the part of the employer, the employee is not informed abut the consequences of non payment of premiums both by employer and corporation. Therefore judgments fixing the liability on the corporation need not interference. In the instant case there are no documents from the side of the opposite LIC to show that the employer of Amaranna informed to Amaranna regarding non payment of premiums for the said months, as he availed medical leave without pay, In the similar way opposite LIC not placed any documents before us to show that it informed to Amaranna at his life time or to the present complainant, regarding default i.e, payment of premiums of those months. Records of opposite Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5 are of the documents prepared after the death of Amaranna. 13. The facts and circumstances of this case are in similar to the facts and circumstances of the cases dealt of their lordships in the said rulings, as such we are of the view that opposite LIC cannot jurk its responsibility either on the shoulder of the employer of Amaranna or on the shoulder of Amaranna, as such, we are of the view that, it is the duty of the opposite LIC to make the payment of the matured value of the three policies of deceased Amaranna to the complainant who is the nominee under the said three policies. Rejecting the claim of complainant by the opposite LIC on the said ground is deficiency in its service towards the complainant , accordingly we answered in Point No.1 affirmative. 14. As regards to the payer of the complainant, the complainant is entitled for maturity value of Rs. 1,00,000/- under policy bearing No. 661189413 she is entitled for Rs. 50,000/- under the policy bearing No. 661200632 and also she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 50,000/- under policy bearing No. 661417442, totally she is entitled for to get an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under the said three policies, subject to deduction of monthly premiums of the said three policies for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. 15. We have noticed deficiency in service on the part of this opposite, accordingly the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposite under the head of deficiency in its service. 16. The complainant is also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite towards cost of this litigation, accordingly we answered Point No.2 POINT NO.3:- 17. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- from the opposite subject to deductions premiums for the month of March & April 2003 and September & October 2006. The opposite LIC is given one month time from the date of this judgement to make such payment. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-09-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.