State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Kaithal Co-Op Sugar Mills Ltd. ... vs 1. Smt. Kalawanti Wife Of Late Shri ... on 21 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1364 of 2005 Date of Institution: 01.08.2005 Date of Decision: 21.05.2012 The Kaithal Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. Kaithal through its Managing Director. Appellant (OP-3) Versus 1. Smt. Kalawanti wife of late Shri Naresh Kumar son of Vaid Jagat Ram, Resident of Village Kotra, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd, Kaithal. 3. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Ltd, Kaithal through its M.D. Respondents (Ops No.1 & 2). BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri O.P. Sharda, Advocate for appellant. Shri Ashwani Bura, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri Deepak Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. Ms. Jaimini Tiwari, Advocate for respondent No.3. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kaithal in complaint No.109.2003.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that husband of the respondent No.1 (complainant) namely Naresh Kumar (since deceased hereinafter referred as the Life Assured) was employed with The Kaithal Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Kaithal (appellant herein and Opposite Party No.3 before the District Consumer Forum). Naresh Kumar had got insured his life with the opposite parties No.1 and 2 Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. vide Policy No.171534168 dated 07.09.1998 for rupees one lac under the Salary Scheme i.e. the premium was to be deducted from the salary of the life assured. The life assured had submitted a written performa to his employer-appellant on 15.09.1998 with the undertaking that he had purchased the above said policy from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 the instalment of which was of Rs.542/- per month which was to be sent directly to the L.I.C. Kaithal by the appellant after deducting from the salary of the life assured. The life assured died on 07.08.2000 but on the date of his death the life was lapsed as the monthly premium was not deposited with the LIC due to the leave of the life assured which was without pay. Due to the lapse policy, the claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated. Under these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and sought direction to the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of rupees one lac in double with all benefits and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part because on the date of death of the life assured, the policy was lying lapse due to non-deposit of the monthly premium since May, 2000 whereas the life assured died on 07.08.2000.
Opposite Party No.3 in its written statement stated that at the time of obtaining the Insurance Policy, it undertaken by the life assured that if his salary did not accrue during the month due to the reasons of enjoying leave without pay or taking advance pay or resigning the service or due to any other reasons, in that eventuality the Mills would not be responsible for not sending the instalments of L.I.C. to the opposite parties No.1 and 2.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint and held the appellant-opposite party No.3 liable to pay the benefits to the complainant for not depositing the due premium of the Insurance Policy. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:-
we are of the considered opinion that the respondents No.1 and 2 are not deficient on their part as on the day of death, the policy was lying in a lapsed condition. Rather the respondent No.3 is deficient on his part for not paying premium in time. The respondent No.3 has failed to submit any proof on file which could show that the life assured remained absent for a long time. This valuable evidence was within exclusive possession of respondent No.3, who could deviate from liability by providing the same. Hence, respondent No.3 is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization to the complainant. Complaint is accepted qua respt No.3 with no order as to costs. Compliance of order shall be made within 30 days from the date of order. The authorities submitted by ld. counsel for the complainant and respondents No.1 and 2 are fully applicable to the present case.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party No.3 has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that as per the terms and conditions of the authorization letter dated 15.09.1998, Annexure R-3/1, it was the entire responsibility of the life assured to ensure the payment of the premium of the policy to the Insurance Corporation in case of the following contingencies:-
i) Proceeding on leave without pay.
ii) Drawing pay in advance without the deduction of the premium.
iii) Cancellation of the authorization given for deduction of premium.
iv) Leaving the service of the appellant.
v) Going out of the administrative control of the appellant.
In support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the authorization letter dated 15.09.1998, Annexure R-3/1 wherein the above stated undertaking was given by the life assured.
The perusal of the above said letter dated 15.09.1998, Annexure R-3/1 reflects that the insured himself was responsible for the consequences flowing from the non-payment of the premium in time. It has come on the record that the life assured remained on leave without pay and during the said period w.e.f. May, 2000 to August, 2000 for which the premium was not sent to the Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. by the appellant. The life assured also did not deposit the premium with the Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. for the reasons best known to him. The fact that the Insurance Policy was lapsed due to non-payment of the due premium, finds support from the details secured from the employer of the life assured which is Annexure R-3/2 wherein it has been shown that the premium of the policy in question was not deposited by the life assured w.e.f. May, 2000 till August, 2000 i.e. the date of his death which occurred on 07.08.2000.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms and conditions of the policy support with the undertaking given by the life assured, it is established on the record that the life assured himself was responsible for not depositing the due premium of the policy due to which the policy lapsed. The policy was taken on 07.09.1998 and the premium was paid upto May, 2000 and the life assured died on 07.08.2000. Thus, the policy had not completed three years and for that reason nothing is payable to the claimant. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts stated above and erred in allowing the complaint by recording a finding that the appellant-opposite party failed to prove that the life assured remained absent from his duties. In our view the finding so recorded by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the complainant herself could have prove by summoning the leave account of the life assured from his employer that her husband was on duty during the alleged period but she failed to do so. Hence, it is not a fit case where any kind of deficiency in service can be attributed to the appellant-opposite party No.3. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 21.05.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member