DATE OF FILING: 7.2.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.08.2017.
O R D E R
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in insurance service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that the husband of complainant late A.Venkat Satyanarayan was serving in Indian Rare Earths Ltd (IRE) as a helper bearing E. Code No. 3811 in Technical Service Department under the control of O.P.No.2. The deceased A.Venkat Satyanarayan while was in service had obtained two LIC policies bearing No.572465967 for an assured sum Rs.50,000/- and Policy No. 573196079 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from LIC of India, Chatrapur, and premiums were deducted from his salary. The said A. Venkat Satyanarayan fell in disease while in service and in the official requisition he was admitted and treated at Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam (AP) and all the expenses were born by the O.P.No.2. It is also informed that the husband of the complainant died on 13.12.2010 and after his death the complainant intimated this fact to the O.P.No.1 putting her claim for death compensation but the O.P.No.1 misplaced the said application of the complainant. Then again the complainant issued one advocate notice to the O.P.No.1 claiming insurance amount then O.P.No.1 on dated 25.07.2013 replied to the concerned advocate’s notice to submit the death certificate and claim form for enabling them to considerer the death claim. As per the reply of O.P.No.1 this complainant submitted the claim form along with relevant documents but the O.P.No.1 issued a reply on 28.10.2013 stating that the claim is barred by limitation, however, a letter has been written to P.A. regarding consideration of death claim under ex-gratia payment and at last the O.P.No.1 replied that nothing is payable under policy due to non-payment of premiums. Thereafter the complainant issued one advocate’s notice to the Manager, HR, IRE Ltd, At/Po: Matikhal, Chhatrapur claiming compensation due to non-deduction of LIC premiums from salary of deceased employee A.Venkat Satyanarayan and on 31.01.2014 the O.P.No.2 replied to the complainant stating that deceased employee was absent from duty from 26.07.2010 to till his death, for which salary from September 2010 could not be proceeded and premium could not be remitted to LIC of India. It is also contended by the complainant that on the requisition of General Manager Medical, IRE Ltd, Chatrapur, the husband of the complainant was admitted as a patient in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and the O.P.No.2 has given all the medical expenses as he was treating under supervision of O.P.No.2. So the period of treatment should not be taken as absent. After death of A.Venkat Satyanarayan, the O.P.No.2 paid all the arrears, salaries and other payments benefits to this complainant, so the O.P.No.2 could have managed the payment of LIC premium to the O.P.No.1. So from the above facts it clearly reveals that the O.P.No.2 has knowingly not deducted the LIC premium. The complainant stated it was the duty of O.P.No.1 to issue a letter to the policy holder reminding him to deposit the premium if not deposited and even that was not done. The O.P.No.1 has never issued any notice to the complainant and O.P.No.2 due to their negligence did not deduct premium from the salary and other benefits of the deceased employee. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed this complaint case before this Forum and prayed to direct the O.Ps making them liable jointly and severally to pay the sum assured under the aforesaid two policies and to pass any other orders which deems fit and proper in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 appeared through his learned counsel Shri Fakir Mohan Pattnaik, Advocate, Berhampur, and filed his written version/argument resisting the claim of the complainant. In the written version/argument it is stated that the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) A.V. Satyanarayan while working under I.R.E. had subscribed two LIC policies under Salary Savings Scheme. His policy No. 573196079 was commenced on 16.03.2010 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Policy No. 572465957 was commenced on 05.12.2008 for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- and both the policies were lapsed due to non- payment of premium since 09/2010. The LIC premiums of the said policies were deducted from the salary of the DLA till 08/2010 but thereafter policies were discontinued for nonpayment of premiums and were lapsed. The complainant through her letter dated 14.09.2013 had disclosed that the DLA was undergoing treatment at Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and died on 13.12.2010 at 2.55 A.M in the same hospital. His death certificate vide Regd.No.1312 dated 15.12.2010 issued by the GVMC, Visakhapatnam also established the same. The O.P.No.1 vide his letter No. CTPR/Claims/AAO dated 05.11.2013 called for the premium deduction particulars from the P.A. of O.P. No.2 and in response to which by their letter No.OFIN/LIC(SSS)8868A dated 19.11.2013 they intimated that no premium was deducted since 09/2010 due to complete absent of the DLA for the entire period. Hence, as the policies were not in paid-up conditions and were in lapsed condition on the date of death, claim as per the term and conditions under the policies and as such nothing is not payable. Accordingly, the same fact was intimated to her by letter Ref No. CTPR/Claims/AAO, dated 04.12.2013 and as such repudiating her claim was quite just and proper. The O.P.No.1 further stated that as the policies were in lapsed condition at the time of death and have not accrued any paid up value nothing was payable as death claim against the same. So, no mental agony was caused to the complainant and all her claims are not maintainable as per law and are liable to be rejected. Thus, the O.P.No.1 is not jointly or severally liable to compensate her claim. The O.P.No.1 further more stated that if any premium remains unpaid due to some reasons, the same can be deducted from the salary of the Life Assured in a later stage (with the permission of the Insurer). As the deceased policy holder was undergoing treatment at Seven Hill Hospital, Visakhapatnam the premium period from 9/10 to 11/10 was not drawn and deposited to the paying Authority in time. However, lapse is a must for all type of insurance policies irrespective of types of mode of payment whether it is under Salary Savings Scheme or ordinary mode. As per the condition and privileges of the policy when the policy is in lapsed condition, nothing is payable under the policy towards any claim, whatsoever, it may be. So the allegation that it was the duty of O.P.No.1 to issue letter to the policy holder reminding him to deposit premium if not deposited and in salary saving scheme there is lapses of policy if premium could not be deposited for some moves is not tenable. It is a fact that the claimant has all rights for claiming insurance money provided the policy is ‘in force’ condition or otherwise treated as in force (where claim concession, relaxation or grace period is applicable), as on the date of death of the life assured. But in the instant case, the policies were not in force as per the said condition so the LIC has no liabilities for payment of any claim against the lapsed policies. Therefore, it would be just and proper to reject her unsustainable claims having devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Similarly, on notice, the O.P.No.2 appeared in this Forum through learned counsel Shri P.K. Padhi, Advocate, Berhampur and filed his written version/written arguments. In his written version/argument it is stated that A.Venkat Satyanarayan, was an employee of IRE. He had submitted a letter of authorization during his valid service time, requesting to arrange for deduction and pay to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the premium amount of Rs. 408/-, wherein he has agreed that the IRE will be confined to making arrangements for deduction of premium from his salary keeping himself responsible for any consequence on account of nonpayment of premium of his policy for reasons beyond control, such as in the event of his processing on leave without pay etc. It will be his responsibility to make arrangements for remittance of premium directly to the Corporation to prevent his policy from lapsing. One legal notice was served on this O.P.No.2 by the complainant and a reply by Regd. Post with AD was given by O.P.No.2 stating about the contents of letter of authorization and it was further informed that the employee A.Venkat Satyanarayan (husband of the complainant) was continuously absent from duty from 26.07.2010 to till his death i.e. on 13.12.2010 for which no salary from September 2010 could be processed. Since there was no salary payable to deceased Satyanarayan owing to his complete absence from duty w.e.f. September 2010, the deduction of LIC premium towards policy could not be made and consequently premium could not be remitted to LIC of India. Under the circumstances the IRE (OP No.2) failed to understand when salary of a person concerned is not in process where from the deduction of premium can be made and consequent remittance towards to LIC. Hence the case of the complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. On the date of hearing we have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel appeared for the O.P.No.1 i.e. LIC and O.P.No.2 i.e. IRE Ltd. We have also gone through the materials placed on the case record and verified all.
On perusal of the case record it we find that there is no doubt or dispute that the husband of the present complainant deceased A.Venkat Satyanarayan was an employee vide bearing E Code No.3811 in the Technical Service Department of the O.P.No.2. It is also beyond any doubt that the husband of the present complaint had obtained two life insurance policies from the O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 under Salary Savings Scheme bearing Policy No.572465957 which was commenced w.e.f. 5.12.2008 for an assured sum of Rs.5,000/- on payment of Rs.434/- towards monthly premium for the said policy. Similarly, the husband of the present complainant had also obtained another life insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 bearing Policy No.573196079 which was commenced w.e.f. 16.03.2010 for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on payment of Rs.408/- towards monthly premium and the present complainant was kept an nominee of both policies as per Section 39 of the Insurance Act 1938. The afore said two policies were obtained by the deceased policy holder from the O.P.No.1 through O.P. No.2 under Salary Savings Scheme. On further perusal of case record we find that the deceased A. Venkata Satyanarayan, the husband of the present complainant was died while on treatment at Seven Hills Hospital at Visakhapatnam on 13.12.2010 as is evident from the death certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. It is also a fact not in dispute that the nominee complainant on 14.09.2013 intimated the death of her husband to the O.P.No.1 for settlement of her death claim and when no response was received, she also issued an Advocate’s notice to the O.P.No.1 for settlement of the death claim. The O.P.No.1 in his letter dated 25.7.2013 intimated to the Advocate of the complainant to submit the claim form along with death certificate and other documents to enable them to settle her claim. It is also a fact placed on record that the O.P.No.1 in his letter vide No.CTPR/Claims/AAO dated 28.10.2013 intimated that the claim is barred by limitation but they have written to PA department to know the premium position and may be considered for exgratia payment. Finally, the O.P.No.1 in his letter No.CTPR/Claims/AAO dated 4.12.2013 intimated to the complainant that two policies of her husband deceased policy holder was in lapsed condition as on the date of death and as per term and conditions of the policies nothing is payable. Accordingly, the present complainant through her Advocate on 8.1.2014 issued an Advocate’s notice to the Manager, HR of O.P.No.2 for non-deduction of the premiums of aforesaid two insurance policies under Salary Savings Schemes. In reply, the Senior Manager (HRM) of O.P.No.2 in his letter No.IREL/ HRM/Misc./774A dated 31.01.2014 informed to the complainant that late A. Venkat Satyanarayan while taking aforesaid two policies from LIC of India of his own had given a Letter of Authorization addressed to the Dy. General Manager (Finance) IRE Ltd, OSCOM authorizing him to deduct the monthly premium from his monthly salary and remit the same to LIC of India. In the said authorization letter late Satyanaryan had expressly declared that company’s liability was restricted to deduction of premium from his salary whenever salary can be made, for remitting the same to LIC. But due to continuous absent from duty w.e.f. 26.7.2010 till his death for which no salary from September 2010 could be processed. Since there was no salary payable to Late Satyanarayan, the deductions of the LIC premium towards aforesaid two policies could not be made and consequently premium could not be remitted to LIC of India. In the above context and in the present fact and circumstance of the case, the real issues which arises for our consideration in this dispute - Whether the IRE i.e. O.P.No.2 having introduced the Salary Savings Scheme amongst its employees was required to remit the monthly premium to LIC i.e. O.P.No.1. Whether or not its employee was absent from duty and if IRE was indeed so required to do? And whether the claim of the complainant is payable by IRE or LIC or both or neither?
6. Before going into merits of the case before us, it would be relevant to briefly examine the Salary Savings Scheme and to see how the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the National Commission have viewed other disputes arising under the Salary Savings Scheme. These decisions will be our beacons and authoritatively guide us in reaching our conclusions.
In the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi reported in AIR 2000 SC 43, a leading case on claims under the Salary Savings Scheme of the LIC. There the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under the Salary Savings Scheme of LIC, it is the sole responsibility of the employer to collect premium from all the employees and remit the same to LIC by means of one cheque. A reconciliation statement is also to be sent in the form prescribed by LIC, no individual premium notice is to be sent by LIC to any employee and no receipt is to be given to him for the premium received. Also it is the employer who is to inform LIC of all the changes in the staff as soon as they occur so also the fact when any employee leaves its service. An employee is kept ignorant of the happenings between LIC and the employer except that he is made aware of deduction of premium from his salary every month. In para-6 of the aforesaid judgment, while dealing with the Salary Savings Scheme, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held as follows:
“…. Considering the conditions as to how premium is to be deducted from the salaries of the employees and remitted to the LIC by the DESU by one cheque for all the employees with the reconciliation statement it is not possible for any employee to know if the amount of the premium deducted from his salary has been remitted or not. An employee is not being given any separate premium notice nor is he given any receipt for the premium received. If a condition is now placed on the employee that it is he who is to intimate the LIC if there is no remittance of the premium deducted by DESU it will be too onerous a condition to be of any validity. Considering the scheme such a condition cannot be imposed on an employee. It is impracticable. A purposive interpretation has to be given to the endorsement and it has to be held that since payment of premium after deducting from salary of the employees is between DESU and LIC. It will not be for the employee to intimate the LIC about non remittance of the premium” (p.46)
7. In the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeswari I (1994) CPJ 5 (NC) which too was a case of repudiation of claim by LIC on the ground that the policy under salary savings scheme had lapsed for non-payment of premium, the National Commission held in para-7 as follows:
……“In these appeals we need not decide if union of India (Southern Railway) or the Corporation is guilty of negligence in the rendering of service. The fact remains that the assured had taken a policy under the Salary Savings Scheme and the premium of the policy was to be deducted by the employer from the salary and it was to be remitted to the corporation. Similarly, the corporation was to intimate the employer about the policy of insurance and authorization for deducting the premium. The said intimation was conveyed by the corporation to the employer long after the policy had been issued. On the basis of the facts in the present case the assured cannot be held guilt of non-payment of the due premium. The fault is either of the corporation or the employer. That matter can be settled between them. As far as the widow, Smt. Rajeswari is concerned she is entitled to the maturity amount under the policy being the nominee under the policy.”
8. Looking at the merits of the case against the above backdrop, we find that no evidence has been led by IRE before us to prove its contention that the insured was absent from duty w.e.f. 26.07.201 to till his death on 13.12.2010 since as per the materials placed on case record submitted by the O.P No.2 the deceased employee was undergoing treatment in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam as referred by the O.P.No.2 to the said Hospital vide Letter of the General Manager (Medical) bearing No.IREL (OSCOM)/MED/C/07/9641A dated 03.11.2010. This letter proves beyond doubt that the deceased employee was officially referred to Seven Hills Hospital for his treatment and it was within the informed knowledge and consent of the employer i.e. O.P.No.2 that the deceased employee is under treatment. Hence, the O.P.No.2 can’t say that he was absent on duty w.e.f. 26.07.201 to till his death on 13.12.2010. Moreover, on further perusal of the case record we find no documents placed on record to substantiate the contention of the O.P.No.2 in this regard. Besides that it is also a fact that the medical expense of the deceased employee was borne by O.P.No.2 as is evident from the letters dated 5.12.2010 and 10.12.2010 of Seven Hills sent to the General Manager (Medical) of O.P.No.2. Therefore, the ground taken by O.P. No.2 that it could not deduct the premium from the salary of insured and remit the same to LIC due to absent of the deceased employee can’t be accepted at face value. However, even assuming that the insured was absent, in our considered view it was the duty of O.P. No.2 to continue to remit the premium to LIC as long as the insured was in its employee, which he admittedly was. In any event the bare minimum that was required of O.P.No.2 was to inform the insured that it had not remitted the premium for the months from September 2010 to December 2010 so that the insured could have taken steps to make the payments and save the policy from becoming lapsed, which too O.P.No.2 failed to do so. Even the O.P. No.2 could have been deducted it from the retirement benefits of the deceased employee which was received by his legal heir after his death. It shows that the O.P.No.2 failed to perform its duties and had not deposited the premiums for the month of September 2010 to December 2010 which amounts to deficiency in service. The O.P. No.2 has also filed before us a photocopy of a letter of authorization in a standard printed form purportedly signed by the deceased insured with respect to policy No.573196079 where it has been mentioned that in the event of leave without pay or drawing advance salary without deduction of premium per chance or his withdrawing of that authorization by a due notice to the employer and to the corporation after the initial period of 3 years or cancellation of the authorization for leaving service. In those cases it is the responsibility of the deceased employee to make arrangement for remittance of premium directly to the LIC to prevent policy from lapsing.
9. In the above context, we would like to view that even if this letter were to be taken as authentic, in our opinion, keeping in mind the nature of the Salary Saving Scheme and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basanti Devi’s case (supra), the responsibility imposed therein upon the employee is too onerous to be practical or valid and required to be read down. Under the Salary Savings Scheme, it is not possible for any employee to know if the amount of the premium deducted from his salary has been remitted or not. The liability of O.P.No.2 can therefore be taken to have ceased only if due intimation had been given to the employee by O.P. No.2 regarding non-remittance of premium to LIC whereupon only the employee would have been responsible and expected to make direct payment of the premium of LIC. As discussed, we are of the view that once an employer has introduced the salary savings scheme of LIC amongst its employees, it is duty bound to make payment of the premium every month by the due date of LIC, regardless whether any salary has accrued to the employee or not and whether such premium has been deducted from his salary or not. However, in cases where no salary adequate to cover the premium accrues to an employee during a particular month, the employer may, in lieu of such payment, send an intimation to the employee that premium for the month had not been remitted by it for the aforesaid reason and such intimation would absolve the employer of its responsibility to remit the premium to LIC. However, when the premium is neither remitted by the employer nor is any intimation sent to the employee as aforesaid, the employer would be deemed to be in default for the repudiation of a claim on the ground of non-payment of premium leading to the lapsing of the life insurance policy. If the O.P. No.2 was not in a position to implement the salary saving scheme amongst its employee fairly and efficiently it ought not to have embarked upon implementing the scheme half-heartedly thereby putting the interest of its employees and their legal heirs in jeopardy, which has happened in the instant case. It is also necessary to notice that O.P.No.2 could have easily paid the premium from September 2010 to December 2010 for 3 months amounting to a paltry sum of Rs. 2526/- (i.e. Rs.434/- x 3months + Rs.408/- x 3months) which could have been deducted from his retirement benefits. The matter does not however rest here. Under the salary savings scheme, in our view, it was also the duty of LIC to inform the deceased policy holder either directly or through his employer O.P.No.2 about non-payment of the monthly premium and also to send him intimation that the policy had lapsed in view of Section 50 of the Insurance Act 1938. If such notice had been sent in all likelihood the nominee of deceased policy holder would have taken steps to remit the premium and to revive the policy even during the grace period of the policy.
10. In the present case even the O.P.No.1 i.e. LIC admittedly failed to intimate the insured about non-payment of the premium to enable him to take steps for its payment if so required but not informed him that the policy had lapsed. Only after the insured died, the nominee complainant widow when filed her claim, LIC summarily rejected the claim on the plea that the premium from September 2010 to December 2010 had not been paid by the O.P.No.2 as a result the policies were lapsed. It was not correct on part of O.P.No.1 to sit quietly without informing the insured that the due premium had not been deposited and when the time to make payment of the claim came, to repudiate the claim on the ground of non-payment of premium. Such repudiation without any prior intimation pointing out the insured person’s failure to deposit the premium and without any intimation that the policy had lapsed, cannot be sustained under law. In view of the above, we call here the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in Rajani Patwari Vs. LIC of India reported in III (1997) CPJ 48 where in Para 3 it was observed that “We also feel that the LIC cannot be absolved of its responsibility in this case only on the technical ground that the policy had lapsed for want of payment of premiums….... We agree with the view taken by the District Forum that had the LIC informed the deceased… about the status of policy as lapsed, he might have taken steps to revive it.” Furthermore, both O.P.No.2 i.e. IRE and O.P.No.1 i.e. LIC are instrumentalities of the State and are required to be more concerned about the welfare of the citizens of the country. They ought not to have left the complainant widow in the lurch, more particularly when the insured was a low paid employee suffering from disease and in hospitalized condition. We recall here the observation made in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore reported AIR 1988 SC 719 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court where it emphasized that instrumentalities of the State are obliged to conduct their business fairly.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that whatever may be the case, the widow of the insured cannot to borrow the very words of the National Commission, ‘be left high and dry in this legal rigmarole’ (see Basanti Devi’s case (supra), Para-14) and she is entitled to receive full payment in terms of the policy.
12. The question which arises now is – who is to pay the amount due under the policy to the complainant? Will it be O.P.No.2 IRE or O.P.No.1 LIC? To us the answer is clear from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basanti Devi’s case (supra). There it has been clearly held in Para-11 as follow:
“…….Mode of collection of premium has been indicated in the scheme itself and employer has been assigned to role of collecting premium and remitting the same to O.P.No.1 i.e. LIC. As far as an employee as such is concerned the employer will be an agent of the LIC….” (p.48)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed at Para -14 of the same judgment, under similar circumstances, that the employer ‘cannot perhaps be held liable under the Act’. It is well settled that if for any negligent act of an agent loss is caused to a third party, the principal is liable. In a number of cases, the Hon’ble National Commission has based its decision on the law of contract and held that no liability lay on the agent and it is the principal who is answerable (see Indian Airlines Vs. S.N. Sethi in landmark judgments on consumer protection, page-16). In the light of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission referred here above. It is thus crystal clear that O.P. No.2 i.e. IRE not only would be liable under the Act being only an agent of its principal LIC i.e. O.P.No.1, the principal which would also be held liable for making the payment to the nominee complainant the sum assured under the policy. In the interest of justice, as far as the nominee complainant widow is concerned, she is to get the assured amount due to her under aforesaid two policies from LIC.
13. Before issuing any against the O.Ps, we would also urge upon IRE and all other employers who have introduced salary savings scheme of LIC amongst their employees that if they are unable to operate the scheme efficiently and truly for the benefit of their employees, they should perhaps desists from extending the scheme further so that the dependent of their employees may not be lulled into a false sense of security only to be rudely woken upon one day to be told that their just claims had been rejected on some ground or the other for no fault of their own thereby defeating the very objective of life insurance policy.
14. In the result, in view of the above discussion, deliberation and decisions as referred above and under the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, we find that O.P.No.2 i.e. IRE is negligent and deficient in service for non-depositing the premiums against the insured’s two policies under Salary Savings Schemes for the month of September 2010 to December 2010 and at the same time the O.P.No.1 LIC is also equally deficient in service for non intimating to the employee for non-deductions of the premiums for three months by the employer. For the suffering which the complainant had to undergo for default committed by IRE in not remitting the premiums to the LIC, we direct the O.P. No.2 i.e. IRE Ltd to deposit the default premiums in the office of O.P.No.1 pertaining to aforesaid two policies along with interest if any as claimed by LIC. The O.P. No.2 shall be liable to deposit the amount towards default premiums within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Simultaneously, we also direct the O.P.No.1 i.e. LIC to pay the sum assured under aforesaid two policies i.e. under Policy No.572465957 a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and under policy No.573196079 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant. The aforesaid total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate 6% per annum till the amount is paid to the nominee complainant failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in this case since the complainant has not prayed for any compensation, cost or interest, we are therefore, not inclined to pass any orders in this regard. The case of the complainant stood disposed off accordingly.
15. The order is pronounced on this day of 24th August 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
