National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Additional Director, Postal Life ... vs Sneh Lata And Anr. on 14 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2006)CPJ45(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision by opposite party No. 1 is directed against the order dated 5.4.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur allowing appeal filed by respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 against the order dated 27.5.1996 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 50,000 of Postal Life Insurance Policy with interest to respondent No. 1 /complainant. The District Forum had directed payment of this amount by respondent No. 2.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Ghesu Singh, employee of respondent No. 2, applied for issue of a Postal Life Insurance Policy of Rs. 50,000 on 7.3.1989 and the Postal Department conveyed acceptance of proposal w.e.f. 21.3.1989. It was alleged that monthly premium of Rs. 148 was being deducted from the salary of Ghesu Singh by respondent No. 2. Assured died on 2.6.1990. Claim made under the policy was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground of premium from October, 1989 to January, 1990 not having been received. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the respondent No. 1 filed complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Both of them contested the complaint by filing separate written versions. Plea taken by respondent No. 2 was that premium amount was being paid in cash by Ghesu Singh and not deducted from his salary and remitted to the petitioner. After perusing the copies of Salary Bill Register, though the State Commission returned the finding that amount of Rs. 148 towards monthly premium was being deducted by respondent No. 2 from the salary of Ghesu Singh but it held that in view of the decision in D.E.S.U. v. Basanti Devi and Anr. III (1999) CPJ 15 (SC) : (1997) SCC 229, it is the liability of the petitioner and not respondent No. 2 to make the payment under the policy. Thus, exonerating respondent No. 2, the award was made against the petitioner. Having gone through the extracts from Salary Bill Register filed by respondent No. 2 we affirm the said finding of State Commission in regard to premium amount being deducted from the salary of Ghesu Singh by respondent No. 2, employer. It is not in dispute that premium amount of October 1989 to January 1990 was not remitted to the petitioner by respondent No. 2.
3. In a recent decision in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation and Ors. v. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker Appeal Civil 6028 of 2002, decided on 28.7.2005, the Supreme Court while affirming the decision in Basanti Devi's case (supra), held that it is the liability of both the insurer and agent to pay the insured amount. Respondent No. 2, thus, could not have been absolved of the liability to pay the insured amount of Rs. 50,000 with interest by the State Commission.
4. Accordingly, revision petition is disposed of holding that it is liability of both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to pay the amount for which award was made by the District Forum. No order as to cost.