::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.88/2017.
Date of filing: 12.12.2017.
Date of disposal: 06.10.2018.
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. Baburao S/o Shivappa Sajjanshetty,
Age:Major, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Thana Kushnoor, Tq: Aurad-B.
( By Sri.D.M.Swamy.,Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Director,
Karnataka Government Insurance Department,
KGID Office Bangalore.
2). The District Officer,
K.G.I.D. Office Bidar.
3). The Assistant Executive Engineer,
PRE Sub Division Basavakalyan.
(By. R.1and R.2. Sri Prashant .D.
R.3. Sri. Mallikarjun.D.Jalkote., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
The present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is by the father and nominee of an unmarried Government Employee of the fair sex, alleging deficiency of service in the part of the opponents. The subject matter of the case is detailed underneath.
2. That, the daughter of the complainant Kumari. Shruthi was employed as a Junior Engineer in Engineering Sub Division Hangal, District Haveri. Government Employees of State of Karnataka, are bound to obtain Insurance Cover from Karnataka Government Insurance Department, failing which even the monthly salary is not reimbursable as per norms and practices prevalent in the state. In obedience to the procedures laid down by the Government and directed by the then employer Kumari. Shruthi, on 30.10.2015 remitted premium amounting to Rs.2,000/- favouring K.G.I.D. through S.B.M. Haveri. She was subjected to prescribed/required medical examination by the Senior Surgeon/specialist, District Hospital, Haveri as a corollary. Soon thereafter, vide Governments order she was transferred from Hangal to the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PRE subdivision, Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar, where in, she submitted the filled up proposal/application form. The proposal was forwarded by the A.E.E., Basavakalyan (O.P.No.3) along with the Bank Challan and medical examination report on 26.11.2015, to the office of the K.G.I.D. Bidar, which was duly received by the later.
3. In the meanwhile, Kumari. Shruthi, while proceeding by a jeep on 08.12.2015, met with a Road Traffic Accident, sustained injuries and died. The case was registered by the Traffic Police, Basavakalyan Vide Cr.No.171/2015,u/s 279,304(A),283,337,338 I.P.C. and was duly investigated.
4. The complainant not very sure about the insurance coverage figure states that, the same was Rs.20,00,000/- and since his claim to that extent has been refuted by the opponents No.1 and 2, is before us.
5. The complainant further avers that, the last employer of Kumari. Shruthi, the O.P.No.3 has umpteen times reminded the O.P.No.2 for issuance of the policy bond. The deceased life assured was also interacting with the Insurer but was orally told that, 5/6 months time was required to process the matter and issue the same, nevertheless, the receipt of the initial premium amount was acknowledged.
6. It is the claim of the complainant that, having received and accepted the Insurance premium, the O.P.s 1 and 2 were bound to entertain the claim of his consequent upon the death of the Insured and by not adhering to such logical action, they have committed deficiency of service inspite of issuance of a legal notice. Thereby, he claims the assured Insured amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with other ancillary relief(s).
7. All the opponents upon receipt of Court notice have abinitio put up appearances through counsels of their choice. The opponents No.1 and 2 were supposed to be represented by the Ld. Government pleader and the O.P.No.3 through Sri. Mallikarjuna, Advocate. While the counsel for the O.P.No.3 had put up sporadic appearances, the Ld. Government pleader has never put up appearance. Rather officials of the opponents No.1 and 2 were appearing on the hearing dates and have filed few statements. Only the opponent No.3 has filed detail written versions and evidence affidavit and the same are lacking in the part of the opponents No.1 and 2.
8. The O.P.No.1 and 2 in their written statement date:01.06.2018 have admitted the fact of remittance of Rs.2,000/- as premium. They also admit the fact of transfer of proposer Late Shruthi and her joining in the office of the Assistant Executive, engineer, Zilla Panchayath Sub division Basavakalyan, Bidar on 04.11.2015. It is further stated that, deceased Shruthi submitted her proposal form to O.P.No.3 and the same was forwarded to O.P.No.2 on 26.11.2015, but K.G.I.D.claims that, it was received on 15.12.2015. It is also stated that, the O.P.No.2 sent back the proposal form on 26.12.2015 on the ground that, since medical examination was conducted at Haveri, the District K.G.I.D. office at Bidar could not have accepted it, suggesting fresh proposal form, medical examination and remittance in Bidar District.
9. The O.P.No.2 further clarifies that, on 13.01.2016, the O.P.No.3 informed about the death Ms. Shruthi and requested acceptance of the earlier proposal, which was refuted citing the death on 16.01.2015. The complainant then got issued a legal notice on 08.02.2015, claiming acceptance of the old proposal and settling the insured amount, which was duly replied.
10. However, the O.P.No.2, in para-10 of this statement avers that, had the proposal got accepted, the Insured amount should have been in the sum of Rs.7,60,000/-. Further, the O.P.No.2 quoting the provisions Contained in Rule15(1) of Karnataka Government Servant (PÀqÁØAiÀÄ fêÀ «ªÀiÁ) Rules 1958, claims that, only remittance in the bank or Treasury does not bind it to settle the claim but acceptance of the proposal is a Sine-qua-non. Therefore, the O.P.No.2 avers, that, K.G.I.D. is not liable to settle the death claim. In its’ further statement date:09.08.2018 and 18.09.2018, the same grounds have been urged by the O.P.No.2.
11. The O.P.No.3 in its’ versions clarifies positively about the remittance by Late Shruthi on 30.10.2015 while working as Junior Engineer at Hangal, Haveri District and that, consequent upon her transfer to Basavakalyan vide a letter date: 26.11.2015, the proposal form along with with other documents was sent to theO.P.No.1 and 2. It albeit feigns a tell-tale denial of accident and death of Late Shruthi, admits about taking up the matter with O.P.No.1 and 2. It further asserts that, as the complainants’ daughter was working under it would not be a consumer. All other assertions of the complainant has been admitted by O.P.No.3. The O.P.No.3 has submitted the attested extract of the outward register maintained in his office evidencing the transmission of proposal form of Late Shruthi on 26.11.2015.
12. The evidence affidavit and written arguments of the O.P.No.3 more or less confirm the contents of the written versions.
13. Considering the contentions of the parties at the dispute, the following points arise for our considerations.
- Is there a deficiency of service herein and by whom?
- Who should be held liable to settle the Insured amount?
- What orders?
14. Our answers to the points raised are as following:-
- In the affirmative.
- The O.P.No.1 and 2 basing on the discussions below.
- As per the final orders owing to the following:
:: REASONS ::
15. Point.No.1: The K.G.I.D. is a department of the Government of Karnataka, directly under its’ control, so also the department concerning O.P.No.3. The Act Creating K.G.I.D. and rules made there under mandates that, every Government employee before drawing salary must insure himself/herself with K.G.I.D. by remitting advance premium, at a rate stipulated by the state of Karnataka. It is in admission of all that, deceased Shruthi, while working at Hangal as a Junior Engineer, consonants with the sovereign stipulation remitted the required premium and got herself medically examined on 30.10.2015. Vide another sovereign function, proximately she was transferred to Basava Kalya and joined here on 04.11.2015, where after the proposal forms and allied document s were transmitted by her employer on 26.11.2015 for which documentary evidence has been produced by the O.P.No.3. Per contra, the O.P.No.2 asserts that, the same was received in its’ office on 15.12.2015. Since it is incorrigible that, a letter despatched from Basavakalyan would arrieve at Bidar after a lapse of almost 20 days, we had insisted upon the K.G.I.D. officials to produce the inward register or the postal cover containing the letter date. 26.11.2015 of the O.P.No.3, which was received at K.G.I.D. office, Bidar. Till the end, no such proof of delayed receipt was ever produced by the K.G.I.D. Next, the insistence of the K.G.I.D. that, the remittance made, and medical examination conducted by the Bidar office is nothing but bureaucratic arrogance. No such stipulation was ever produced before us. Next, the quoting of rule 15(1) as afore discussed is grossly anti con sumer and red tapism of the highest order. It is not based an any rational, moral, ethical approach. A Government employee subjects himself/herself to the rules framed by the sovereign and so long the subject is not in defiance of the employer, it is the bunden duty of the later to protect the incumbents’ interest in all manners. Herein, the deceased employee has complied all the requirements in all good faith. Her sudden transfer and subsequent death by accident which was a force majeure condition would never deprive her off just entitlements. Denying such a prieviledge, undoubtedly, a deficiency of service has been perpetrated by the O.P.No.1 and 2. Even otherwise in the case law reported in III(2007) CPJ-3 (S.C.) United India Insurance Company Limited v/s Great Eastern shipping company Limited the Hon’ble Apex Court has concurred that, “when two views are possible, the one which favours the consumer should be accepted”. Hence, we decide point No.1 in the affirmative.
16. The O.P.No.3, being the employer of deceased Shruthi was rendering free service to her and as per service conventions had received and transmitted the proposal form, remittance receipts and medical examination reports to the O.P.No.2. There exists no relationship of Consumer a service provider. Hence no fault can be implanted on O.P.No.3. We hold as such, taking a cue from a ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Divisional Manager L.I.C. v/s Haribandhu Setha and ors reported in Judgement today 1996(4) S.C. Page-288, and rule that, the O.P.No.1 and 2 would be held liable to reimburse the Insurance claim.
17. Though initially, in the first statement filed on 01.06.2018, the O.P.No.2 has narrated the Insurance Coverage should have been to the extent of Rs.7,60,000/- , at a later stage, apropos to a reply to the application filed under the provisions of R.T.I. Act, has disclosed that, the Insurance Coverage till the attainment of 55 years of age would be in a sum of Rs.7,88,000-00. We therefore hold that, this amount should be disbursed to the complainant with other usual relief(s) and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,88,000/- to the complainant together with an interest of 12% p.a. calculated from the date of lodging the first claim till the date of realisation;
- There having been confusion in the minds of the officials concerned interpreting the provisions, we would not saddle the Government organisation to pay compensation or litigation expenses;
- Case against O.P.No.3 stands dismissed;
- Orders at (a) to be complied within four weeks.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 06th day of October 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Copy of proposal form for availing insurance.
- Annexure.B– Copy of Medical Examination report.
- Annexure.C- Original remittance receipt date.30.10.2015.
- Annexure.D–Copy of communication date.26.11.2015 of AEE
P.R.E.Subdivision Basavakalyan. - Annexure.E- Copy of letter date:12.01.2016 AEE P.R.E.Subdivision
Basavakalyan in the address of K.G.I.D. Bidar. - Annexure.F- Copy of FIR and complaint.
- Annexure-G- Office coy of legal notice date.04.02.2016.
- Annexures.H to L- Original postal receipts.
- Annexure.M and N- Original postal acknowledgements.
- Annexure-P- Copy of Aadhar Card.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure.R.1- Copy of statement indicating receipt of insurance
instalment. - Annexure.R.2- Copy of proposal form.
- Annexure.R.3- Medical examination report.
- Annexure.R.4- Copy of premium payment.
- Annexure.R.5- Copy of (Extract of) outward register(relevant page) of
the office of AEE P.R.E. Subdivision Basakalyan. - Annexure.R.6- Copy of letter date.26.11.2015 of the AEE P.R.E.
Subdivision Basakalyan to K.G.I.D. Bidar.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri Baburao S/o Shivappa @ Shivaraya (complainant).
Opponent.
-Nil-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
