Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager Lic Of India vs Kamalamma on 15 November, 2010
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal, B.V.Nagarathna
I I {By B§£:t:i.1.BHANTTiAICHELLAPPA COUNSEL)
-- W/OIIATE
"C/O ERKONDAIAH
- " --.Nt'J.=8>.5, NELLUPURAM
'THIPPASANDRA POST
_ BANGALORE-560 075
I " -{By Sri: RGOPALA KRISHNAN, ADV.)
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OP KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15m DAY OE NOVEMBER, 20;
PRESENT _ TEST
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT If I
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUBTTOE I
R.F.A.N0.5O'1:.]:'2004I. ' I I I
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA
FRAZER TOWN:.B'S'...A'NCHI_ 1
NO.163, _
BANGALORE 560. 042? _ ._ _ -
REP. BY7-LIC. OF INDIA; DIVISIONAL OEEIOE
NO. 1, JEEVAN PRAKABH',~~.;'c ROAD
BANGALOREESGO 002; "
BY ITS MANAG ERILTEGAL) "
'-- APPELLANT
... RESPONDENT
THIS RFA IS FILED U/O XVI R 1 R/W SEC 96 CPC AGAINST T HE JUDGMENT AN D DECREE DATED:I2.12.2003, PASSED IN OS.NO.I5I72/2000, ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDLCITY CIVIL 32: SESSIONS _ pay a.surn.of Rs:3A,.Qfi6,94§:/~ with interest. A "«..The'"fac"ts germane can be summarised as follows:
93*»-v.__'Po1icy N'o,Vs€§1~.l0565293 for a sum of Rs. l,00,000/-- with double benefit under the Salary Saving Scheme. The ,.._fllpla3intiff who is the widow was the nominee to receive the uifsaid benefits of the policy in case of the untimely death of -2- JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, [CCH--20], DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY op' MONEY AND DIRECfi"i--i\lG THE APPELLANT HEREIN To PAY A SUM or' Rs.3,05;94_"-2/':.aA' TOGETHER WITH EUTURE INTEREST AT THE 'or; _ P.A. ON RS.2,26,800/~ FROM THE DATE OF T}~:1Ej---stIrf1f~T_1L1;'-< ITS REALISATION. " ' ' ' A' 9' This Appeal coming on for;lei«earing:.."_;' 99 AJIT J.GUNJAL J., delivered the.._foll.owdng:.__ ' '- J U. D (3, ME The defendant Life Insu'ran.ce' of India is in appeal. vyIt...is_Aag,§ri;ex;§d ju.dg_r.rient and decree passed by the learned trial:j.udge'deCreeing the suit in favour of the respondentfplaintilfand ~dir_ec'ting the defendant appellant to of the plaintiff one Ankaiah had taken a policyrof life insurance with the defendant on 7 .3. 1990 under the policy holder. The husband of the plaintiff was done to death on 16.4.1993 and in this regard a case was registered W .V fr65DornC(.:l.?"i'i , the plaintiff is that the last premium of 'Vi\/larch when the policy was still alive. Accordingly, was by the Gas Turbine Research Establishment the employer of the deceased. Hence, according to plaintiff the non--payment of the death claim is illegal, if arbitrary and opposed to the principles of the policy of the -3- in Cr.No.'77/93 by Biyappanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 against one Narayana and others. Indeed we are _ concerned as to the facts of the criminal "
however, as the plaintiff was the she entitled; to receive the benefits flowing out fofgthe appears that the plaintiff was the defendant for Payment o1i'th.€ wasvdule to her. The defendant however, amount of Rs.6,819/ of all the claim of the p1aintiff.v dissatisfied with the conduct of issued a legal notice on 11.11.,1--99gA4. 'll"'neV received the notice, but did not Rs;f§'.f.éi'-4:l.ESV('lviasldeldticted from the salary of the deceased in life insurance. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a fl _5_ the policy lapsed. According to it, it was the duty of the insured to take necessary steps to keep the policy live the terms and conditions. It is also further subrr1it'te_dgt_hat__v"
though the policy had not completed three years.,and not acquired any paid up value as on the-Zildateplgoif the insured, the corporation had' _4ad}usted~ the premiums to revive the lapsed and' had --admitted to pay Rs.6,819/ -- towards notional p value instead of treating it as lapsed. The admitted to pay the said sum pf lhurnanitarian consideration. According to _' ltIie:n_,V Vvltheypvlhad acted as per the rules and terms of the binding on the insured and the persons --. claiming under them. It is their contention that d it lunpder {th5e"*Satlary Scheme the insured gets benefit of liwaliverl premium payable as an additional charge in the other Further the insured also undertakes to pay the" premium if it is not paid by the employer due to any "reasons. According to them it is the duty of the insured to A' ;see? that the premium is paid regularly by his employer or by himself in the event of any lapse on the part of his employer. It is also contended that if the premium is paid monthly, a grace period of 15 days is allowed after due date and in the case of premiums payable under the said scheme. The sum / A iii} Whether the plaintiff proves that she being the if 6. In support of the said pleadings. the plaintiff examined -6- and substance of the defence is that as on the date when---the plaintiffs husband died, the policy was not alive as the premium which was paid in the month "
1993 was adjusted to the last p}'€111.lE.l'YI1 if according to them, the policy circumstances, the question of not arise. W 3 if b 2 f
5. On the basis of the«--_.p1ead_ingsill. learned trial judge has framed the following i l l V 1} t11el"detefidatltV.préves' that the suit of A lthelplairitiff for non--joinder of employer of ll"d.eceased--ilr1sured?
W'hethler'---.the' defendant Proves that the policy A v..i~J.oL6Vl0565293 was lapsed on account of alleged if of premium as stated in para--5 of _ W.s.?
nominee of the policy holder is entitled to the suit claim?
iv] What decree or order?
herself as PW} and Ex.P--1 was marked. On behalf of the fl submits that thellpolicy question did lapse when the last of not paid. She submits that for various V _ premi"o.msV:are:l'llnot paid and the last of the premium which , March 1993 was adjusted upto July, 1992. ii-an July 1992 till April 1993 when the insured died, policy was not alive. Hence, the question of the " defendant satisfying the suit claim does not arise. She VII17WUI defendant, one of the officials of the Corporationprmras examined as DWI and Exsl)-1 to D~--6 .
Learned trial judge on hearing the submissions o£t'ne V' and on interpretation of certain termswandp of» policy was of the View that the defendantscannotniioid liability to satisfy the suit claiIlri._V:vp:"'Hy_ence;' that the defendant had failed to the "suit isiibad for non--joinder of employer of and they have further failed to prove had lapsed on account of .--alileg;#§d_-.non4payinent:c~f premium as stated in their written statement andihus, -decreed the suit.
7. lnksupportl'oi'-._the "appeal; Smt.Shantha Chellappa, learned cousnelvv appeairi»n,§'_.»i»for the defendant vehemently reasons vV'as_*vv..__con'tended in the written statement, the further submits with reference to the manual wherein X; V1*€)x. g Indeed it is to be noticed that in support of the ' the defendant had examined DW1. During the cottrse of his evidence, he has clearly admitted that the lfpolicy in question is the salary saving scheme and if the -9- the salary saving scheme that if the premium is paid continuously for a period of 24 months and the policy not have lapsed, then the nominee is entitled to _ entire amount. He submits that it is in M insured had paid premium for a .f thereafter for a further period o1".threeV"mo'nths vvoluldt necessarily satisfy the conditionsvlvofltlie prov'isi_ons which are applicable to the salary
9. We hay? «iéjitfen consideration to the subn1issio13$ counsel appearing for the parties. 'I'hc.__fol.l0Wing arise for our consideration in thisiappealt 2 V" 2 Wliiethervthef trial court was justified in decreeing "'--v.p"the_:s'uit of the plaintiff placing reliance on the Vdconditions applicable to the salary saving ' scheme of the policies?
premium is paid for a period of 24 months, the policy would / /(/«' not lapse. The learned trial judge extracts the evidence in fl 'l V' broadly classified as awnormal policy. But we are of the view l'iha"1,_l_thel'_3.1ad insured his life under salary saving health vvhich would necessarily mean that it is a special "pol1cy.""Awhich would require payment of premiums for a flllperiod of 24 months continuously which is the case on hand. , ;*Hence, we are of the View that the impugned judgment and -13- of payment of premiums was under monthly salary saving scheme which would necessarily mean that on a s4te.n'd_i_rlgv instructions given by the employee to the . premium will be deducted by the employer and the corporation. That would be the scghen-1ee,:' A g _
13. Having regard to the fact that?the_cor0poration has V received the premium for twolyears and-.n'ow_.'.=ca'fi1not he heard to say that theyvare notl"lia1n3:lc t"o.._satisf'y"'th'e claim. Indeed, there..V.a15e;»"twol' ..of"poli§cies one is the policy which we are " cgoncerne-d."'i.e.,_ salary saving scheme and another aregular -policylhwfilich is referable to the death claims arising' byvthehvldeathl of the life assured which could be scheme, it.lcer'tainly does not require declaration of good decree cannot be faulted. We decline to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge'. WW appeal stands dismissed. i:////~
14. Indeed grant of decree for recovery of money V. subject to the plaintiff producing all necessary establish the fact that she is the entitled to receive the benefits and she__is'required to. protluCt5'~ all such documents to show ti1at'V--ishe Vis«.'ofsthe insured. it is needlessvtozsay «tiha'tnshe"b_eing'a noniinee has to receive the entire amount the other legal heirs.
15. order granted by this court.
50% of the_ arnount "deposited and the plaintiff has withdrawn s'0%% of the said amount. She is entitled to the rernaining 50% in deposit. On furnishing the defendant shall settle the claim of the._p1aini;ift'§ appeal stands disposed of.
&H§_ Iudqé sd/* IUDGE S33