1.                     The complainant is the wife of late Kurpa Patro Khora @ Khara who during his life time was working as Driver under Ops 2 & 3 and had obtained an LIC policy bearing No.570225447 dt.14.11.1998 under Salary Saving Scheme for a SA of Rs.50, 000/- with premium @ Rs.277/- p.m.  The LA died on 09.11.2001 while in service and the complainant being the nominee under the policy, approached the Ops for settlement of death claim of her deceased husband but in vain.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to pay the Sum Assured with vested bonus and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death and to pay Rs.50/- per day from 09.11.2001 towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter admitting the policy No.570225447 dt.14.11.1998 issued in favour of Krupa Patro Khora under SSS with monthly premium of Rs.277/- for Sum Assured of Rs.50, 000/- and contended that premiums have been received up to 11/2001 with gap of 12 months from 3/2000 to 2/2001.  It is contended that they have received claim intimation from the complainant on 07.5.2002 in which the date of death of LA is mentioned as 09.11.2001 and soon after receipt of death intimation from the nominee, they have sent letter to OP.2 seeking clarification regarding non remittance of premiums and the OP.2 informed that the LA was under suspension for the said period.  They also contended that due to non remittance of premiums for 12 months the policy was lapsed at the time of death and hence the death claim is not admissible under the policy.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 filed counter contending that late K.P. Khora, ex-driver was under suspension from 01.3.2000 and SA was paid to him from 3/2000 to 01/2001 but the LIC premium for the said period has not been deducted from the SA bill and after reinstatement, the salary for the said period was drawn and the LIC premium has been deducted.  Thereafter the employee was relieved from his duties w.e.f. 31.3.2001 from OP.2 and joined in the office of OP.3 at Mathili.

4.                     The OP.3 also filed counter contending that there is no gap of LIC premium from the period 4/2001 to 11/2001 i.e. from his joining to his death on 9.11.2001 and the OP.3 also filed copy of Pay Acquittance register in support of deposit of premiums.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.3 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     Parties have filed certain documents.  Heard from them through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.                     In this case the policy No.570225447 obtained by late K. P. Khora on 14.11.1998 for a SA of Rs.50, 000/- under SSS with monthly premium of Rs.277/- are all admitted facts.  The LA died on 09.11.2001 that means the policy in question exists for 3 years and 1 month.  It is seen from the record that when the complainant was working under OP.2 he was under suspension from 3/2000 to 2/2001 and was getting SA for the said period.  No premium of LIC was deducted during the suspension period as revealed from the counter of OP.2.  It is also further revealed that after reinstatement of LA, his salary was drawn for the suspension period and the OP.2 has deducted the LIC premium.

7.                     The OP.1 on the other hand stated that no premium from 3/2000 to 2/2001 has been received by LIC.  The OP.2 has not furnished the deduction particulars of LIC premiums for the disputed period.  The complainant has also not taken proper care to let the Forum confirm regarding deposit of premiums for the disputed period by OP.2.  Hence the contention of the OP.1 that the premiums for the disputed period have not been deposited with them was not challenged by the complainant properly.

8.                     It is seen from the record that after reinstatement the LA was transferred to the office of OP.3 and the premiums from 4/2001 till the death of LA has been deducted and deposited with LIC by OP.3.  As the policy completed its term for more than 3 years, the complainant is entitled to get the deposits with vested bonus in terms of acquired paid up value but not the death claim.  It is seen from the status report of the policy in question filed by OP.1, the policy gathered vested bonus of Rs.9800/- and the complainant is definitely entitled to get the deposits along with bonus so accrued.  As such it would be proper to direct the OP.1 to refund the deposits along with vested bonus to the complainant in the interest of justice.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation or cost in favour of the complainant.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amount under policy of the DLA and pay the vested bonus so accrued to the complainant–nominee within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order till actual payment.

(to dict.)