State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Lic Of India & 1. The Executive ... vs 1. (A) Smt. Ranjana S. Koli (B) Bhaskar ... on 25 January, 2012
Draft for approval :_
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal
No. A/00/1828
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 12/09/2000 in Case No. 26/2000 of District Satara)
1. LIC Of INDIA,
WESTERN ZONAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG,
MUMBAI 400 021.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. (A) SMT. RANJANA S. KOLI (B) BHASKAR SADASHIV
KOLI
R/O.VYANKATESH COLONY, GOLIBAR MAIDAN RD, GODOLI,
SATARA.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOYNA CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION NO.4
KOYANANAGAR, TALUKA PATAN, DIST.SATARA.
3. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR, SATARA.
...........Respondent(s)
First Appeal
No. A/00/1931
(Arisen out
of Order Dated null in Case No. First Appeal No. of District Satara)
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KOYANA CONSTRUCTIONS
DIVISION NO.4, TAL PATAN, DIST SATARA.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. (A) SMT. RANJANA S. KOLI (B) BHASKAR SADASHIV
KOLI
R/O.VYANKATESH COLONY, GOLIBAR MAIDAN RD, GODOLI,
SATARA.
2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SATARA, DIST.SATARA.
3. BRANCH MANAGAR, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
BRANCH AT KARAD, DIST.SATARA.
4. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
TROUGH COLLECTOR, SATARA.
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT: Adv.Rajiv Chavan for the appellant,
LIC present (A/00/1828).
Adv.D.V.Shinde for the respondent/original complainants.
ORDER
(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member ) (1) Both these appeals have been preferred by the respective appellant, LIC of India (A/00/1828) and Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No.4, Koynanagar, Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara (A/00/1931) against the order dated 12/09/2000 in Consumer Complaint No.26/2000 (Smt.Ranjana Sadashiv Koli & anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, D.O. Satara & ors.) passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).
(2) District Forum by way of the said order has allowed the complaint of the complainant directing thereby opponent No.1 & 3 to pay an amount of `25,000/- along with accrued bonus and other benefits in respect of policy No.9040467363 with interest @15% p.a. from August, 1995 till realization and in addition directed to pay `3,000/-
by way of compensation and 2,000/- towards cost of proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellants have preferred Appeals No.1828/2000 and 193/2000 respectively.
(3) The facts in brief are that one Sadashiv Ramchandra Koli, husband of the original complainant/respondent No.1 subscribed to the policy No. 9040467363 under Salary Savings Scheme. Said Sadashiv Ramchandra Koli, the life assured died on 23/02/1995. As a nominee under the policy, the complainant filed death claim with the original opponents/appellants. The opponent LIC intimated original complainant/respondent about non-receipt of premia September, 1994 and asked for certain documents which were complied with by the original complainant for settling of the claim.
The deceased life assured was employee working with the original opponent No.3/appellant, Executive Engineer, Koyana Construction, Division No.4, Koyananagar, Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara, who was transferred to Division No.1 of the original opponent No.3 w.e.f.July 1994. The claim of the respondent/complainant had not either settled or repudiated by the opponent No.1& 2 LIC and therefore, the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum, Satara. The District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the order supra. Feeling aggrieved by this order, appellant/original opponent No.1, LIC preferred the appeal No.1828/2000 on the ground that the employer (original opponent No.3) of the deceased life assured failed to deduct and remit premia from the salary under Salary Savings Scheme. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is not payable as the said policy was in lapsed condition since October 1994 and further averred that the policy terms & conditions Clause 11 cast no responsibility on appellant LIC about receipt of premia under the Salary Saving Scheme which is solely responsibility of the life assured when deduction of the premium was not continued by the employer and remitted to the LIC. Contention of the appellant, Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No.4, Koynanagar, Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara (appeal No.1931/2000) was that life assured was transferred from their Division No.4 to Division No.1 effective from July 1994. While life assured was serving with them, all the premia were deducted and promptly paid to the original opponent No.1 & 2 LIC.
(4) This is an old appeal placed on the board for hearing and disposal from the sine-list. Matter was finally heard on 17/01/2012 in presence of the learned advocates for the appellant in Appeal No.1828/2000 (Original opponent No.1/Respondent No.2 & 3 in A/00/1931) and original complainants in both the appeals. Appellant in Appeal No.1931/2000 (Original opponent No.3/Respondent No.2 in A/00/1828) preferred to remain absent.
(5) The contention of the appellant in A/00/1931 is that as long as the deceased life assured was working with them premia under the policy were regularly deducted and remitted to the original opponent No.1 & 2 LIC till the transfer of the deceased life assured from their office to Div.1 (Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction, Koyananagar, Patan, Dist.Satara). On transfer of the deceased life assured from their office, responsibility of deduction and remittance of the premia to the LIC ceases. Other issue raised by the appellant about limitation as death of the life assured took place on 23/02/1995 and the complaint was filed in the year 2000.
Appellant herein is not responsible for non-settlement of the death claim of the complainant by the respondent No.2 & 3.
(6) Heard both the learned counsels present. Perused the record. The learned District Forum has appreciated the facts of filing the consumer complaint and considered the delay, since the respondent No.2 & 3 LIC have neither repudiated nor honoured the claim of the original complainant/respondent No.1 till filing the complaint. Therefore, District Forum held that the consumer complaint was filed within limitation and we are in complete agreement with the same.
(7) Learned counsel of the appellant LIC submitted that the clause 11 of the policy document provides that the life assured is under obligation to remit premia in time, therefore the LIC, Appellant (in A/00/1828/respondent No. 2 & 3 in A/001931) is not under obligation to intimate failure of payment of premiums. The submission of the learned advocate is not acceptable in view of the provisions of Clause 14 of Policy Sevicing Manual (Salary Savings Scheme) of opponent LIC which reads as follows :-
14. Default Intimation :-
When the premium is not recovered consequently for 3 or 4 months, the default intimation should be issued before the 5th default in any case.
This provision itself prohibits appellant, LIC (A/00/1828) to disown the responsibility for not monitoring receipt of premiums particularly when there is default in receiving the same continuously 3 or 4 months.
(8) It is observed from the record that the opponent LIC continued to issue intimations for payment of premiums to the appellant and reasons best known to them discontinued this practice after some time. Moreover, the policy under Salary Savings Scheme is welfare measure and deduction of premia under the said scheme was obligatory on the part of appellant/original opponent No.3 as an employer and remit to opponent LIC. The contention of the appellant/original opponent No.3 that after transfer of the deceased employee to other Division cannot be accepted as both the Divisions are under domain of the department of Govt. There is no record that the appellant has intimated to the Division No.1 about the deduction of premiums from deceased employees salary for remittance to LIC. The appellant/original opponent No.3 has miserably failed to discharge their duty cast upon them under tripartite contract.
(9) Referring to services in pursuance of contract, appellant, LIC as explained in Sec.2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, LIC (A/00/1828) as a contracting party to the tripartite agreement has rendered deficiency in service. Therefore, submission of learned advocate for the appellant, LIC disowning responsibility to monitoring the receipt of premium cannot be accepted. In the instance case, the appellant, Executive Engineer, Koyna Construction Division No.4, Koynanagar, Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara (A/00/1931) failed to deduct and remit the premiums to LIC.
However, appellant LIC cannot take advantage of this default and find escape route as observed by the Honble Apex Court in :-
(i) Appeal (civil) No.6028/2002 Chairman, LIC Vs. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar,
(ii) III (1999) CPJ 15 (SC) - Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi & Anr.
(10) Ultimately, the claim is required to be processed and honoured by the LIC as the LIC is prohibited to take advantage of non-receipt of premium due to lack of deduction from the salary of the employee by the employer.
Both these appeals are devoid of truth. In the circumstances, impugned order must lie against appellant LIC (in appeal No.1828/00). We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Both the appeals No.A/00/1828 & 1931 stand dismissed.
(2)The impugned order is maintained against the appellant in A/00/1828 /original opponent No.1, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Satara.
(3)No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 25th January, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER pgg