JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by complainant Smt. Tholisamma against the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/- being the LIC amount with bonus and Rs. 5,000/- towards damages with cost and other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she being the wife and nominee under LIC policy subscribed by her husband Chinna Panchalaiah for assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- commencing from 28-07-2000, under salary deduction scheme. The said Chinna Panchalaiah died on 25-12-09, thereafter complainant being the wife and nominee under the policy, filed claim petition before the opposite Nos. 1 & 2, but not settled her claim inspite of her repeated requests, opposite No-3 not shown interest in settling her claim. As such, she filed this complaint against opposites for the reliefs as noted in the complaint. 3. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 LIC appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by admitting that, subscription of LIC policy by Chinna Panchalaiah under salary deduction scheme by his employer opposite No-3, but said Chinna Panchalaiah took VRS from his service on 10-06-05 at his life time. He assigned the said LIC policy to the Bank of Maharastra and obtained the loan. In the said circumstances LIC not received any premiums from Chinna Panchalaiah or from his wife within two years from the date of lapsed policy, as such, her requests was not considered, the nominee under the policy was cancelled by Chinna Panchalaiah himself, at his life time, as such there is no deficiency in its service, accordingly LIC of India prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. Opposite No-3 is an employer of Chinna Panchalaiah filed written version by admitting the fact of subscription of the LIC policy by Chinna Panchalaiah, he took VRS on 10-06-05, as such there was no salary deduction of the premium amount, this was informed to him, as such there is no deficiency in its service, accordingly prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 5. 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, she is the wife and nominee under the LIC policy bearing No. 661362015 of her husband Chinna Panchalaiah, which commences from 28-07-2000, thereafter the said Chinna Panchalaiah died on 25-12-09, complainant being the wife and nominee under the policy filed claim petition with all records but opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and also opposite No-3 shown their negligence in settling her claim and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.? 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (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 :- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No-1 & 2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 8. Affidavit-evidence of the General Manager (Co-ordination) of opposite No-3 Company was filed, he was noted as RW-2. The document Ex.R-7 is marked. 9. In the present case some of the undisputed facts in between the parties are that: - 1. Complainant is the wife and also nominee under the LIC policy subscribed by Chinna Panchalaiah at his life time. 2. It is undisputed fact that, the premiums of the said policy are to be deducted from the salary of Chinna Panchalaiah by opposite No-3 3. It is further undisputed fact that, the said Chinna Panchalaiah took VRS on 10-06-05 and thereafter he died on 25-12-09. 10. Keeping in view of these undisputed facts. Now let us discuss the points on which the complainant is claiming the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. The main contention of the complainant is that, she is the nominee under the said LIC policy as such, she is entitled to claim the LIC amount of Rs. 25,000/- due to death of her husband on 25-12-09. 11. In pursuance of this contention, we have to see as to whether how for this contention is acceptable in the light of the written version and evidence of LIC of India. 12. Ex.R-5 filed by LIC of India and clearly discloses the fact that, Chinna Panchalayya took VRS from his service under opposite No-3 from 10-06-05, that means to say that, Chinna Panchalaiah was fully knowing the fact that opposite No-3 being an employer cannot deduct the premium amount and to pay to LIC after 01-06-05 due to his VRS. So it is his duty to make payment of premium directly to LIC but he not paid premium amount directly to LIC till his death. The complainant also not paid any premium amount to LIC of India till Today. In view of the fact, we can easily say that, premium amount of the LIC not paid by any one from 01-06-05 till this date. More specifically, we can say that, premium amount of the said policy was not paid any by one within, two years from the date of this lapsed policy. 13. Keeping in view of the facts stated above. We have referred the ruling relied by the complainant i.e, Chairman, LIC of India & Others V/s. Rajukumar Bhaskar reported in 2006(1) Civil LJ 1 (Supreme Court). 14. We have also gone through the principles of the ruling of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission vide Ex.R-4 in Appeal No. 1251/08 and another judgment of the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 2061/06 vide Ex.R-6 relied by the opposite Nos. 1 & 2. 15. We are of the view that, with great respect to their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that, the facts and circumstances of that case are quite different to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the employer, who under took to deduct the premium from the salary and to remit the same to the LIC, but not deducted and not informed to the complainant as well as LIC, in that situations their lordships upheld the contentions of the complainant. But in the instant case, the complainant himself had the knowledge that, opposite No-3 cannot deduct and pay the premium amount to LIC for the reasons that, he himself took VRS from his service from 10-06-05, as such we are of the view that, the facts and circumstances discussed by their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not similar to the facts and circumstances of this present case on hand and the facts and circumstances discussed in appeals vide Ex.R-4 and Ex.R-6 are similar to the facts of this case, as such, we have not accepted this contention of the complainant to hold that, opposite No-3 committed deficiency in its service or opposite No- 1 & 2 LIC committed deficiency in its service. 16. Another ground for rejection of this complaint by us is that, the said LIC policy was assigned to the Bank of Maharastra by Chinna Panchalaiah at his lifetime and obtained loan from it. This fact is supported by his own notice at Ex.R-3, when such being the case of Chinna Panchalaiah, then it is the duty of the complainant to disclose the said facts in this complaint to substantiate that her claim is genuine and opposite Nos-1 & 2 have committed deficiency in their service by not making the payment. Complainant also not disclosed the fact as to whether the loan was satisfied or not to the Bank of Maharastra as assigned vide Ex.R-3. When such being the real case, then how opposite No- 1 & 2 are responsible for not making the payment of LIC amount as claimed by her. 17. We have taken note of all the affidavit-evidences and documentary evidences of the parties, and we came to a conclusion that, the complainant not only approached this Forum with un cleaned hands, but also suppressed the real facts before us, as such, she is not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed in her complaint, either against opposite Nos- 1 & 2 LIC of India or against opposite No-3 company, accordingly we rejected this complaint as opposite Nos. 1 to 3 have not committed any deficiency in their services, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in negative. 18. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in her complaint as such, we answered Point No-2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 19. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 06-04-11) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.