BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 10^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 175/07

 Between:

Syed Maqbul Basha, S/o.Buranuddin,

R/o.H.No. 30/92-B, Chittari Street, Kurnool.             …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-          

1.The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

Kurnool.

2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India,

River View Colony,Kurnool.                         …Opposite Parties

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.K.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Sri.I.Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)

C.C.175/07

1.     Complaint filed under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant who was an employee as lighting Superintendent , Engineering  Section , Municipal Corporation , Kurnool opened two LIC polices  under salary savings scheme i.,e Jeevan Mitra policy bearing No. 651430547 dated 11-07-2000 for Rs.2,00,000/- as sum assured  with monthly  installment  premium of Rs.1,260/-  per month  and another   Jeevan   Anand   policy   bearing  No. 652681498  dated   27-02-2002 for sum assured  Rs.1,50,000/- with monthly installment  premium of  Rs.1,121 /- per month . The opposite party No. 1 was deducting  the premiums  from the salary of the complainant every month from the date of commencement of the  two policies  and remitting to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 later sent letters  about the default  in payment  of installments . The complainant approached  the opposite party No. 2 .But there was no response. Then the  complainant  brought it  to the notice of opposite party No. 1. Further opposite party No. 1 did not respond. On 23-06-2004 the complainant  and other employees got issued a notice  to opposite party No. 1 regarding the  attitude of concerned B4 clerk  of opposite party No. 1 who misappropriated  the premium amount for his personal affairs. The concerned clerk was not  changed by opposite party No. 1. On 10-12-2005  the complainant received two letters form opposite party No. 2 that the two policies  were lapsed due to default in payment of installments  . The B4 clerk  of opposite party No. 1 was responsible  for lapse of policies. The complainant made representations  to opposite party No. 1 that the policies  were  lapsed because of non  remitting  premiums from the  salary  to opposite party No. 2 .   On 14-08-2006  the complainant received a letter from opposite party No. 2 to comply certain requirements to continue the two policies. The copy of said letter was submitted  to opposite party No. 1 , but the opposite party No. 1 did not give prope reply and suppressed to furnish  the particulars   of  payment. It was done  intentionally by  opposite party No. 1 . At last the complainant    got   issued   a   notice  to  opposite  party  No. 1 on 17-04-2007  and 12-07-2007  and both were  served  but the  defect was not rectified. It was negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 . The available  funds were not remitted  to opposite party No. 2 . The opposite party No. 2 did not communicate  to opposite party No. 1 that the premiums  were not received  . Thereafter  the complaint was filed directing the opposite parties  to pay  compensation  of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony  and costs and pay the matured  policy amount as per the  policy terms and conditions.

3.     The opposite party No. 1 filed counter  admitting  that the complainant  was an employee  and the two policies  taken by him  under salary savings scheme  with monthly premiums. The allegations  that the Section B4 clerk of opposite party No. 1 was deducting  the monthly premium from the salary of the complainant from the date of commencement of the two policies  and remitting to opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No.1s clerk  had not remitted the amount to opposite party No. 2 and inspite of several letters and representations to change the clerk  by opposite party No. 1 was denied . It was not correct that  the Section  B4 clerk mis-appropriated  the premium amount  for his personal affairs.  It was not correct  that the two policies were  lapsed on account of non remitting the premium to opposite party No.2 .It was not correct  the complainant received a letter dated 14-08-2006 and sent  a copy to  opposite party No. 1. that the opposite party No. 2 requested to comply the requirements to  continue the policy. It was not correct  that the opposite party No. 1 failed to rectify the defects and was not informed to opposite party No. 2 . It was not correct that  the complainant made  representations  to opposite party No. 1 regarding attitude of the concerned staff. It was not correct  that the opposite party No.1 did not use the opportunity  given by opposite party No. 2 and remitting  the premiums  to opposite party No. 2 and failed to furnish  the required  payment particulars  . It was not correct that  the complainant issued two notices and the opposite party No.1 did not respond.

4.     The  complainant   was   on  medical leave for 149 days from 28-12-2002 to 26-04-2003  and half pay leave  on 27-04-2003  to  30-04-2003 and from 01-05-2003 to 15-05-2003. During the medical leave period  the complainant  had not claimed the salary bills  .Thus the opposite party No. 1 did not send the premium amount of the two policies to opposite party No. 2 . As no salary was claimed and  no premium was  deducted. After sanction  of the medical leave for 149 days the complainant claimed the salary in the supplementary bills  in January 2004 . By mistake  the premium amount was not sent because the supplementary bill  was paid as arrears  of salary in January , 2004. The complainant was kept under  suspension  from 21-07-2003 . He claimed the salary  from 90 days  from  the  date  21-07-2003 to 18-10-2003 and same was sanctioned  on 19-10-2003 and was paid in February 2004. Therefore the  premiums could not be sent . Because the salary  was not paid during the suspension period . He was kept under suspension  continuously from 19-10-2003 till that date . He claimed  the  salary  for   the  period  from 19-10-2003 to 29-02-2004 and was paid in March , 2004 and hence the premium was not  paid as the salary was not paid in supplementary bills. The  premium amount was not sent by mistake . The complainant  in his  letter dated 04-05-2005 requesting not to send the premium form April 2005 from his salary. Therefore it was  stopped for payment of premium to opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2  had not received the premium for the policy  No. 651430547 for the months of January 2003 to May 2003 and August 2003 to October 2003 and April 2002. The opposite party No. 2 had not received the premium for another policy No. 652681498 for the months  January 2003 to May 2003 and August  2003 to December , 2003 and January 2004 to April 2004 . The lapse of the policy  was not due to negligence of the opposite party No.1. There was no deficiency of service on the  part of opposite party No.1. Any amount that was not paid by opposite party No. 1 after getting the salary  to opposite party No. 2 was in general funds and the complainant could claim the said amount. The complaint  was barred by time . Thus, the complaint may be dismissed with costs. The complainant requested  the opposite party No. 1 not to deduct  any amount  from out of his salary  for two policies. 

5.     The written version of the opposite party No. 2  is the opposite party admitted the two policies  and premium amount  payable  by the complainant  under salary savings scheme through opposite party No. 1. It was true that the opposite party No. 2 sent several letters to the complainant about default in payment and installments  under two policies   , but  there was no response  and hence the policies were lapsed. The first unpaid premium was February 2005 . Subsequently  the complainant converted both the policies  from salary savings scheme  to ordinary  mode and got both the policies  and surrendered  and surrender value  was received on 23-09-2006 and 01-09-2006 respectively. It was clear in the  status report  . He did not disclose  that he surrendered  the polices. The paid  dockets were not available  because they were destroyed  due to flood water on 22-06-2007. There was no negligence  and deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 2. Thus , the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6.     On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are

(i)     Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of  the opposite parties  .

(ii)    Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(iii)  To what relief ?.

7      On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A19 were marked and PW.1 was examined . On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B22 were marked.

Both parties filed written arguments.

8..    Point No. 1 & 2:    The complainant  was working as lighting  Superintendent , Engineering Section , Municipal Corporation , Kurnool .  It was an admitted fact that the complainant  took  two policies  under salary savings scheme vide Jeevan Mitra policy bearing No. 651430547 dated 11-07-2000 for assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with monthly installments  premium of Rs.1,260 /-  and the second policy namely Jeevan Anand  policy bearing No. 652681498 dated 27-02-2002 for sum assured Rs.1,50 ,000/- with monthly installments premium of Rs.1,121/- . The Ex.B1 and B2 was the letter of authorization under the salary saving scheme  issued by the complainant  to opposite party No. 1 to deduct  the  monthly premiums from his salaries under two policies . Ex.B3 was the statement of deduction  of monthly premium for the  months of July , 2002 to September, 2002 and April 2004 to July 2004 for the policy No. 651430547 with monthly premium Rs.1260/- . Ex.B4 was another copy of the statement of payment  of another policy No.652681498 with monthly premium of Rs.1,121/- for the months  July 2002 to September, 2002 and April 2004 to July 2004. The opposite party No. 2 filed Ex.B5 , Ex.B6, Ex.B7 , Ex.B8 , Ex.B9 , Ex.B10 , Ex.B11 , Ex.B12 , E.xB13, Ex.B14, copies of the employees payment roll  of the complainant  for the month of January 2003, February , 2003 , March 2003, April 2003 , May 2003 , August, 2003 September 2003  , October 2003  , November, 2003  , December, 2003    respectively . In all these  months  there was no payment of salary to the complainant  by opposite party No. 1 . The reason was the complainant was on medical leave  from 28-12-2002  to 26-04-2003 and earned leave and 27-04-2003 to 30-04-2003 and half  pay  leave  on  account   from 01-05-2003 to 15-05-2003.. He was sanctioned  Rs.1238/- towards subsistence allowance  for the period 19-10-2003  to 29-02-2004 . The copy of the payment register i.e, Treasury  pass book was Ex.B20. The subsistence allowance of  the complainant for the period from 21-07-2003 to 18-10-2003 of Rs.3214/- was also  paid to the complainant  and same was shown  in the copy of the treasury pass book  under Ex.B19. Similarly  the leave salary  of the complainant was paid of  Rs.1,155/- from 18-12-2002  to 15-05-2003 and was shown  in Ex.B18 copy of the  treasury pass book.

9.     The complainant was kept under suspension  as per order in RC 5668 /03 –E1 dated 31-10-2003 by opposite party No. 1 . The copy of the suspension  order was Ex.B15. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite party No. 1 not to deduct the monthly premiums for  two policies under salary  savings scheme  and remit it to opposite party No. 2 ,because the premiums would be paid by him separately . The copy of the  letter was Ex.B16 dated 03-05-2005 . So from May 2005 onwards  there was no salary  savings scheme  to his two policies . However the opposite party No. 2 under Ex.B17addresed a letter to  the opposite party No. 1 that they had not received the premium amount for the two policies  for the months  of January to May 2003 , August to October 2003  and April 2004 under policy No. 651430547 and for the months of January 2004 and  April 2004 and January to May 2003 and August to December 2003 under policy No.652681498 . Therefore the complainant  was on medical leave for some time and half pay leave on some time and was kept under suspension  for certain period and he himself addressed a letter to opposite party No. 1 not to send the monthly premium from out of his salary under the two policies  under E.xB16. There was no salary savings scheme  mode under the two policies  from May 2005 onwards to the complainant . At the time of payment of subsistence allowance or the leave salary ,the opposite party No. 1 had its duty until they received Ex.B16 to deduct the  premium from out of his salary . But the opposite party No. 1 admitted their own mistake in not deducting  the premiums.

10.    The complainant got issued a notice under Ex.A1, Ex.A4 , Ex.A5 to opposite party No. 1 that it had not remitted the premiums  towards his policies  to opposite party No. 2 and hence the policies were lapsed and thus the opposite party No. 1 was liable .  Ex.A2 and A3 were copies  of written notices to opposite party No. 2 . He filed Ex.A6, Ex.A7 , Ex.A8 , copy of the status reports issued by opposite party No. 2 regarding the two policies  with default months. He filed Ex.A9 , Ex.A10 , two letters for two policies  received from opposite party No. 2 for revival of the polices requesting the complainant to remit the premium dues for months of February 2005 to November , 2005 along with interest . Ex.A11 , A12 xerox copies of the letters addressed by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 that the two policies  were lapsed and requesting  to take necessary  action against  the staff in the opposite party No. 1 . Ex.A13 was another  Xerox copy of the letter addressed  by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 . Ex.A14 Ex.A15, A16, A17 , A18 , A19 were Xerox copy of for letters addressed by the complainant to opposite party No. 1.

11.    The complainant examined PW.1 , Jr. Assistant in the Establishment Wing  in  Engineering Section , Municipal Corporation , Kurnool who had stated that the complainant  had two polices  under salary savings scheme  and premiums of Rs.1,260/- , and Rs.1,121/- per  month from out of the salary was remitted  to the section . From October 2000 to April 2005  the monthly premiums were deducted for Jeevan Mitra policy and from April , 2002 to 2005 the monthly premium  for Jeevan Anand  policy. The PW.1 admitted that the complainant was kept under suspension since dated 21-07-2003                      and deduction were made till he requested to stop the deduction   in May , 2005 and therefore there was deduction  from the salary  from May , 2005. Even though  he was kept  under suspension  the subsistence allowance  was paid in February , 2004 under Ex.B19. . The medical leave salary for 149 days was also paid . The subsistence  allowance was   also   paid  in March, 2004 for    the   period  from  19-10-2003 to 29-02-2004 under Ex.B20 ..They were drawn under the separate bills. Therefore in these circumstances  the opposite party No.1 admitted their  own mistake in their counter  for non payment under the salary  savings scheme  to the two policies  of the complainant till  May 2005. It was also  a negligent  part of the complainant while drawing  the leave salary and subsistence  allowance  without enquiry  about the two premiums  under the salary  savings scheme . Thus the  opposite party No. 2 was not liable  because it was its duty to receive the premiums and credit in the account of the complainant. Hence the opposite party No. 2 was not liable . A negligency and deficiency of service was only on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Ex.B21 and Ex.B22 were the status report of two policies  filed by opposite party No. 2.

12.    In the resul , the complaint is allowed  directing the opposite party No. 1 only to pay non remitting  salary savings scheme premium amount to the complainant  under both policies  for the months in due under the two policies within 60 days from the date receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of September, 2009.

LADY MEMBER              PRESIDENT FAC)               MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :                For the opposite parties :Nil

PW.1         Deposition of First Witness for Complainant (S.Mazor Basha) dt. 27-08-2008.                                                       

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:    

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)               MALE MEMBER  

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :