State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Officer, Satara Municipal ... vs Smt.Rupali A.Lawanghare & Ors on 20 August, 2015
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/00/386
The
Chief Officer,
Satara Municipal
Council
1,
Kesarkar Peth
Satara -2
...........Appellant
Versus
1.Smt.Rupali
A.Lawanghare
2.Amal
A.Lawanghare
3.Ku.Priyanka
A.Lawanghare
4.Sh.Bhikoba
N.Lawanghare
31,Sadashiv
Peth
Satara 2
5.The
Sr.Divisional Manager
Life
Insurance Corporation of India
Satara
Division Office
Jeevantara, Ganpatdas Devi Peth
Satara -2
...........Respondents
BEFORE:
Justice R.C.Chavan
President
Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.Shailesh Chavan -Advocate for the appellant
None
for the respondents
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint no.CC/98/177 dated 18/01/2000 directing the appellant Municipal Council to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental and economical hardship andRs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Forum had also ordered the other opponent no.1 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the complainant about which appellant has no grievance and the LIC does not seem to have preferred any appeal.
Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-
One Mr.Anil Lawanghare was an employee of the appellant Municipal Council. He had taken out three policies from the opponent no.1-LIC. Premia for these policies were to be deducted from the salary of the employee and were to be remitted to the LIC.
Appellant had undertaken to do the needful. It appears that the premia were remitted regularly till December 1996. Premia thereafter were not remitted to the LIC. The insured expired on 02/07/1997. Since the premia had not been paid, Insurance Company refused to pay the amount under the policies. Legal heirs of the insured therefore filed the consumer complaint.
The complaint was contested by both the opponents before the District Forum.
After considering the rival contentions, Forum came to pass the impugned order directing the LIC to pay Rs.1,45,000/- towards the policies and Rs.25,000/- by the appellant towards the mental and economic hardship and costs. Aggrieved thereby, Municipal Council has preferred this appeal.
Appeal was admitted long ago and was adjourned sine die. After it was taken out from sine die list, notices were again issued to the parties. None appeared for respondents i.e. heirs of the original complainant/insured and opponent no.1-LIC. Notices against the heirs of the deceased insured were also published in daily newspaper but in spite of this, the heirs did not choose to appear.
We heard learned counsel Mr.Shailesh Chavan for the appellant. The District Forum seems to have ordered the payment of compensation by the appellant on the following causation:-
Appellant was an agent of the insured and, therefore, was obliged to deduct the insurance premia and remit the same to the LIC. Forum observed that as per law of agency, in case of emergency, agent is bound to protect by all means the interest of the client. Forum observed that the amount of provident fund and gratuity amount was lying with opponent no.2 and, therefore, possibly the Forum found that the amount of premia could have been paid from these amounts. The Forum, in our view, failed to realize that since insured was on leave without pay, there was no question of making any deduction from the salary of the insured and remitting the premia to the LIC. The Forum has not pointed out that there was any authority with the appellant to pay premia out of provident fund or gratuity amount. In any case, question of making payment from gratuity would not arise since gratuity would be payable only on cessation of employment. Therefore, Forum could not have held the appellant liable for any lapse, since the appellant could not have paid the premia from its own fund. We therefore find that order of the Forum as against appellant is unsustainable. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order directing appellant to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental and economic hardship and costs of Rs.5000/- is set aside.
Rest of the order passed by the District Forum stands as it is.
Pronounced on 20th August, 2015.
[JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.