State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Shri Vinod Shivaji Wadekar on 22 July, 2010
1
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 25.05.2006
Date of Order:22.07.2010
FIRST APPEAL NO. 987 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 340 OF 2005
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch No. 954, Sable Building,
Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar.
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Zonal Manager,
Ygakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai- 400 021. ... Appellant
//VERSUS//
Shri Vinod Shivaji Wadekar
R/o. Shivneri, ... Respondents
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. N.V. Mande, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. N. B. Narwade, for respondent.
:: ORAL ORDER ::
Per Shri. S. G. Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. The present appeal is filed by the LIC of India against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2006 in complaint case No. 340/2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar.
2. The complainants case before the Forum is that, his wife Maya Wadekar had obtained the policy 'Bimakiran' without profit with accident benefit under Table & Term 111-20, for sum assured Res. 2,00,000/- on 28.03.1998. The policy was to be matured on 28.03.2018, and 20 years 2 Money Back policy with profit with accident benefit under Table & Term 75-20, for sum assured Rs. 25,000/- on 28.10.1999. Policy was to be matured on 28.10.2019. Both the policies were under salary saving scheme. The deceased Maya Vinod Wadekar, was working in the school at Jeur, Dist. Ahmednagar. It is contended that, Maya Wadekar died on 22.06.2004. After her death the complainant being the legal heir submitted the claim. The appellants issued him the cheque of Rs. 13,000/- and informed that as the policies were in lapsed condition he is not entitled for the policy claim and thus, he approached the Forum.
3. The present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. Appellant is not at dispute regarding both the policies under salary saving scheme. It is contended that premium of July-99 to Nov.99, July-01, Oct.03 to May-04 were not paid and thus the policies were in lapsed condition. They have rightly repudiated the claim.
4. Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,12,000/-, after deducting the amount of premiums with the interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.06.2004. Forum also directed the appellant to pay the amount of RS. 2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/-
towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order LIC came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as the respondent. Learned counsel learned Shri. N.V. Mande, appeared for appellant, whereas Shri. N. B. Narwade, appeared for respondent. We heard both counsels. We perused the papers. There is no dispute that, both policies were obtained by Maya Wadekar were under salary saving scheme. The 3 employer was authorized to deduct the premium from monthly salary and remit the same to the appellant. Thus, the employer was working as agent for the appellant. It is the contention of the appellant that some of the premiums were not received and thus policies were in lapsed condition. There is nothing on record to show that, either appellant or the employer had informed the insured about non-receipt of the premiums in her life time. Under salary saving scheme employer is to deduct the premiums from monthly salary and to remit the same to the appellant. The salary saving scheme was floated by the LIC. It is not case of the LIC that they had withdrawn and accordingly informed the deceased in his lifetime. We have mentioned that, no notice about non- receipt of the premium had been given by the appellant or the employer to the employee in her life time. The Forum has rightly considered all these aspects and rightly allowed the complaint. Forum granted the interest @ 12% p.a. In our view, interest granted by the Forum is higher side. We are of the view that the interest ought to have granted @ 9 % p.a. Accordingly, we modify the order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The order is modified in respect of interest.
3. The appellant is to pay the interest @ 9 % p.a. instead of 12 % p.a. from 26.06.2004.
4. Rest of the order is maintained as it is.
5. No order as to cost.
(Mrs.Uma S. Bora) (S. G. Deshmukh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar