1. This Revision Petition is filed before this Commission by the South Central Railways, who were OP No.2 before the District Forum, Krishna II, Vijaywada, in a consumer complaint filed by the present Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2, LIC of India, in the present proceedings, was OP No. 1 before the District forum. The Revision is filed against concurrent decisions of the fora below. 2. The case of the complainant arises from two LIC policies taken by her husband on 16.03.1998 and 21.3.1998. In both cases, OP-2 was to deduct the premia, month to month, from the salary of the assured and credit them to OP-1. The assured died on 19.7.2002 but the Complainant did not succeed in getting her claims under the policies settled till 04.05.2007 when she made the complaint to the District Forum. The reason was that seven installments of the premium, in each case, had not been credited by OP-2 to OP-1, over a period of three years prior to the death of the assured. 3. The District Forum held OP-1 responsible for not keeping the insured informed on the default on payment of premium. OP-2 was held responsible similarly for not crediting the instalments though the policies were under the salary savings scheme. Accordingly, OP-1 and OP-2 were both held liable to pay Rs.85,000/- each to the Complainants, with interest and costs. The appeal filed by the South Central Railways, against the above mentioned award of the District Forum, was dismissed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, holding that it was devoid of any merits. Hence, OP-2 is before us in this Revision Petition. We have perused the records of the case and heard learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 4. In the impugned order, the State Commission has taken into account the agreement between the Railways and the Insured to deduct the premium amount from his salary and remit the same to the LIC. The Railways had tried to explain their lapse as attributable to computer mistake, on which the Commission has observed that no corrective action was taken by the Railway authority even after detection of such computer mistake. No attempt was made to inform the assured or to separately collect the amount from him and remit to OP-1. The State Commission therefore, held that it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of Railway authorities. The Complainant cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the fault on the part of the Railways. We also find from the pleadings before the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the Railway authorities also failed to give appropriate response to the LIC when the latter attempted to settle the claim on ex-gratia basis. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. The same is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. |
