::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.09/2018.

                                                            Date of filing: 20.02.2018.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 14.08.2018.

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                    B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                        President

                             (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

COMPLAINANT/S:    1.   Mayuri W/o Vishwanath,,                                                            
                                            Age:28 years,  Occ: House wife,

                                            R/o H.No.6/79, Near Bomgondeshwar Temple,
                                            Village Gagdal, 585226 Tq and Dist: Bidar.                                                                                        

                                       ( By Sri.S.M.Shetkar.,Adv.)                                                    

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation
                                             of India, Branch Office, Near Railway Station,
                                             Jeevan Beema Road, Bidar-585401.

                                    2)        The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance
                                             Corporation of India, Divisional Office,
                                             “AMRUT PRAKASH”Raichur-585401.,
                                           

                                    3)        The Executive Engineer (Electricals) O & M
                                             Division GESCOM Office, Bidar-585401.
                                              

                                                (By. R1 & R2.Sri.Sanjay Kumar S.Patil., Adv.

                                               And R3. Mahesh S.Patil.,  Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The complainant has approached this Forum by filing a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opponents.  The subject matter of the complaint in brief is as follows:-

2.           The complainants’ husband Late Vishwanath was an employee of O.P.No.3.  He had obtained L.I.C. Policy bearing No.661756120 (Jeevan Anand) for a sum assured of Rs.3,50,000/- coupled with double accidental death coverage by paying two monthly installments @ Rs.1644/- on 1.04.2016.  Consent letter to be conveyed to the employer for effective monthly deduction from the salary was also handed over to the Insurer at the time of signing up the proposal form.  Her husband died on 06.01.2017 due to Road Traffic Accident near Khandsari Sugar factory of Mogdal Village on N.H.9 and she being the nominee of the policy raised the claim before O.P.s, No. 1 & 2, surrendering the original policy bond.  She had also filed documents such as death certificate and the other papers obtained in connection with Crime No.01/2017 of Bemalkhed Police Station, who investigated the case after the accident.

3.          The complainant further submits that, the Insurers not satisfying the claim, the former caused a legal notice to be served on O.P.s 1 and 2 on 30.12.2017 and the O.P.s No.1 and 2 sending a reply that, the commencement date of the policy being 11.04.2016 further premiums were supposed to be paid from June 2016 by the O.P.No.3 by deductions from the salary.  The next premiums were but collected from the month of October 2016 and the policy lying in lapsed condition at the time of death of the proposer, the Insurers were not liable to pay the death benefits.  Therefore alleging deficiency of service, the complainant is before us seeking an award of Rs.7,00,000/- and other allied benefits.

 4.        All the opponents on notice have participated in the proceedings by engaging counsels of their choices.  The O.P.NO.1 and 2 do not dispute the relationship of the complainant with the deceased policy holder or his acquiring of the policy by paying monthly premium but dispute the fact of death by accident subject to production of proof.  The O.P.s further claim that, the monthly premiums (subsequent) should have been remitted form June-2016, instead of which they were remitted from October 2016.  It is also stated that, the intimation for collection and remittance was sent to O.P.No.3 on 10.05.2016 by speed post, where by the opponents have performed their duty.  The premiums from June 2016 to September 2016 were not remitted by the O.P.No.3 for which the policy was rendered lapse and hence the opponents are not liable to pay the insured amount.

5.         The O.P.No.3, which admitting the fact of obtainment of policy and death of the deceased policy holder, asserts that, the deductions were, done as per the request and the case is not maintainable against it.

6.         Relevant documents have been submitted by the complainant and opponents No.1 and 2.  All have filed evidence affidavits reiterating their respective stands, filed written arguments and have been heard length.

7.         Considering the rival stands of the parties, the following points arise for our considerations:-

1. Does the complainant prove deficiency of service?
2. On which of the opponents such deficiency to be planted?
3. What orders?

8.         Our answers to the points raised are as following:-

1. In the affirmative.
2. Affirmative in respect of O.P.No.1 & 2 and negative in respect of O.P.No.3.
3. As per final orders owing to following:-

:: REASONS ::

9.         Point (1): The complainant marshalling her case has submitted all relevant documents from which the factum of obtainment of policy in the usual manner and proposers’ subsequent death due to Road Traffic Accident is proved beyond doubt.  The O.P.NO.1 and 2 admit the fact of policy, so also the O.P.NO.3.  The O.P.s o.1 and 2 of course taking shelter of non deduction and remittance of premiums due for the months June 2016 to September 2016 are washing off their hands to satisfy the claim.  In the official apathy of all the opponents, the poor widow but has been the looser for no fault of hers and we infer that, there has been a deficiency of service and we hold accordingly.

10.       Point No.2&3: Te O.P.No.3 being the employer of the deceased policy holder, on intimation was supposed to deduct and remit the monthly premiums form the salary of the policy holder.  Here, no consideration was to be paid by the employee for such service and hence the case cannot be brought under the arena of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Even in a case reported in Judgement Today 1996 (4) S.C.-Divisional Manager L.I.C. v/s Haribandhu Setha and ors, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled as stated above.  Hence it is inferred that, the O.P.No.3 would be excluded from any negative tenent of this Forum.

11.       As far as the opponents No.1&2 are concerned, we are guided by a judgement of the Punjab State Commission, reported in III(2009) C.P.J.140 between L.I.C. v/s Mamchand and Anr., in which it has been held as hereunder:-

            “Since Insurer assumed liability of writing to employer of life assured to deduct premium amount from assureds’ salary- Insurer liable to pursue the matter with employer.  If not paid by the employer, Insurer liable to inform so to the assured- Deficiency of service in the part of insurer proved”.

12.       In a more recent judgement reported in 2015 NCJ 466(NC)- L.I.C. v/s Smt. Ramsakhi, the Hon’ble National commission has been pleased to hold as underneath:-

            “Question of lapse arises under S.S. Scheme when premium remains unpaid for six months and intimation to that effect was to be to the employer as well as the insured”.

13.       Analysing further and quoting paras 13.4 and 16 on Manual for policy servicing department (No.14) of the L.I.C., the Hon’ble National Commission has observed:-

            i.          13.4 Default in premium should be informed to the party.  If unpaid for 6months lapse can happen.

            ii.         16 Notice to employer in Form No.5227 and notice to employer in form No.5228 itself is mandated in the L.I.C.’s own manual.

14.       The above said analysis also has been repeated by the Hon’ble National Commission in a recent case in a Revision petition- L.I.C. v/s Seeta and Anr., decided on 13.02.2018 in para-8 of the judgement, (Electronic copy submitted by complainant).

15.       In this case in hand the L.I.C. has squarely failed to give effect to its’ own rules and prescriptions and thereby we answer points No.2 and 3 accordingly.

16.       The policy held by the deceased life assured Vishwanath having been coupled with double accident cover by accepting extra premiums the corporation would be bound to pay double the insured amount.  However owing to the confusive state of affairs, we don’t propose to saddle the nationalised corporation with payment of litigation expenses, compensations or interest and therefore we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER.

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P.s No.1&2 would be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant.
3. Case against O.P.No.3 stands dismissed.
4. There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.
5. Four weeks time granted to comply the order.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 14^th  day of August 2018).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                       

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.A- Original premium receipt of Policy No.661756120.
2. Annexure.B–Copy of Policy stated above.
3. Annexure. C– Copy of death intimation.
4. Annexure.D—Copy of death certificate.
5. Annexure. E– Copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.1/2017 of Bemalkhed Police
                             Station Bidar.
6. Annexure.F- Copy of complaint inCr.No.1/2017 of Bemalkhed

                       Police Station Bidar.

7. Annexure.G- Copy of U.D.R. Inquest report in Cr.No.1/2017,

                         Bemalkheda Police Station.

8. Annexure.H- Copy of Post-mortem report.
9. Annexure.J – Copy of Final report.
10. Annexure.K- Copy of Driving Licence of Vishwaath.
11. Annexure.L- Office copy of legal notice.
12. Annexure.M & N- Postal receipts of legal notice.
13. Annexure.P- Original postal acknowledgement.
14. Annexure.Q-Reply to legal notice.

 Document produced by the Opponents.

1. Annexure.R.1- Copy of authorisation letter.
2. Annexure.R.2- Letter written to the Superintendent of Post, Head
                               Post Office, Bidar.
3. Annexure.R.3- Copy of Ledger extract.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Smt.Mayuri (complainant).

Opponent.

1. R.W.1-  Sri.C.K.Ravikumar, authorised officer of L.I.C.
2. R.W.2- Sri Basawraj S/o Appa Rao Patil, Executive Engineer

             (O & M), Bidar Division, Bidar.

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.