Kerala High Court
The Branch Manager vs Narayanan K.V on 27 August, 2025
W.A.No.551 of 2021 1 2025:KER:65261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 27
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 5TH BHADRA,
1947
WA NO. 551 OF 2021
GAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2020 IN WP(C)
A
NO.23351 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
A PETITION: HE BRANCH MANAGER T LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, THALIPARAMBU, KANNUR - 670 141. BY ADV SMT.S.LAKSHMY ESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 R TO 3 IN THE WRIT PETITION : 1 ARAYANAN K.V. N AGED 62 YEARS KAKKATTU VEEDU, MALAYATTOOR P.O., CHAMMINY - 683 587, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 IJAYAM NARAYANAN V AGED 60 YEARS KAKKATTU VEEDU, MALAYATTOOR P.O., CHAMMINY - 683 587, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.A.No.551 of 2021 2 2025:KER:65261 3 IJEESH K.N. V AGED 26 YEARS KAKKATTU VEEDU, MALAYATTOOR P.O., CHAMMINY - 683 587, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4 TATE OF KERALA S REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 5 HE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY T THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 6 ETERINARY SURGEON V VETERINARY DISPENSARY, IRIKKUR, KANNUR - 670 593. HIS T WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.06.2025, THE COURT ON 27.08.2025, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.551 of 2021 3 2025:KER:65261 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present intra court appeal under Section 5oftheKerala High Court Act, 1958, arises out of the judgment dated 18.12.2020 passedinW.P(C)No.23351of2019,wherebythewritpetitionfiledby respondents 1 to 3 herein has been allowed. 2. The appellant herein is the 4th respondent in the writ petition and respondents 1 to 3 were the petitioners in the writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of late Vineesh K.N. and the 3rd respondent is his brother. The said Vineesh K.N. was appointed as Livestock Inspector Grade - II on 11.04.2011.Whilein service, Sri.Vineesh K.N. took various insurance policies including SLI bearing ID No.KSID/L1/041296658, Group Insurance bearing ID No.120131300236 and LIC policy from Taliparamba Branch bearing W.A.No.551 of 2021 4 2025:KER:65261 No.79961996. The policy premiums were deducted from the salary accountofSri.VineeshK.N.regularly.On18.08.2018Sri.VineeshK.N. was found dead at his quarters and respondents 1 to 3 being the legal representatives of the deceased, requested for payment of insurance benefits. Respondents 1 to 3 were informed that insurance policies of Vineesh K.N. were lapsed. Being aggrieved, respondents 1 to 3 had filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2020 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant - LIC, TaliparambaBranch to release the policy amount under LIC policy No.79961996 and respondents4to6hereinaredirectedtoreleasethepolicyamount under SLI bearing ID No.KSID/L1/041296658 and Group Insurance bearingIDNo.120131300236torespondents1to3.Beingaggrieved, the LIC, Taliparambu Branch has filed the present writ appeal. W.A.No.551 of 2021 5 2025:KER:65261 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that late Vineesh K.N. has taken the Life Insurance Policy forasumofRs.5 lakhs with the date of commencement from 14.10.2017. The premium payable was Rs.1,944/- per month. The policy was taken underthesalarysavingscheme.Thepremiumdueonthepolicyon 14.06.2018wasnotpaid.Thepolicyhada15daysgraceperiodfrom unpaid premium due date, as per policy conditions. The premium ought to have been paidbefore29.06.2018. However,thesamewas not paid. Therefore, the policy lapsed with effect from 30.06.2018 due to non payment of premium. Sri.Vineesh K.N. died on 18.08.2018. At that time, the policy was lapsed. Theemployerlater remitted Rs.6,108/- towardsthedefaultedpremiumforthemonths of June, July and August, 2018 on 16.08.2019. The learned counsel further submitted that the belated payment of premium cannot W.A.No.551 of 2021 6 2025:KER:65261 revive the lapsed policy. Late Vineesh K.N was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 12.06.2018 to 22.06.2018, 27.06.2018 to 01.07.2018, 08.08.2018 to 09.08.2018 and 13.08.2018 to 19.08.2018. However,theunauthorizedabsencewasregularisedaseligibleleave as per order dated 13.06.2019. 4. The learned counsel further contended that there was no tripartite agreement between the employer, employee andtheLIC. HefurthersubmittedthatthelearnedSingleJudgeerredin coming to the conclusion that lapse of such policy forthefaultcommitted by the employer, would not disentitle respondents 1 to 3 from claimingthebenefits.He,therefore,prayedthatthiswritappealbe allowed. 5. Per contra, the learnedcounselappearingforrespondents 1 to 3 submitted that the deceased was a Grade II employee ofthe W.A.No.551 of 2021 7 2025:KER:65261 6th respondent herein and he did not know the nicetiesoflaw.As perExt.R4(c),anauthorizationletterwasalreadygiventotheBank onthebasisofwhichthepremiumwasdeductedmonthlyfromthe salary account of late Vineesh K.N.. Even though there is an undertaking that if the premium is not paid, the responsibility wouldliewiththeinsured,inthiscase,dueauthorizationwasgiven by the appellant to the deceased. ThelearnedSingleJudgehasnot committedanyerrorindirectingtheappellanttoreleasethepolicy amounts to them. In view of the afore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for thepartiesandperusedthe records. 7. As per the Apex Court judgment in the case of Chairman, LifeInsuranceCorporation&Othersv.RajivKumarBhasker[(2005)6 W.A.No.551 of 2021 8 2025:KER:65261 SCC 188], when employers accept responsibility of deducting premium from salaries of employees and sending the same to the insurer, an agency is created expressly or by necessarily implication. The employers have clearly a role to playonbehalfof LIC. For all intends and purposes, employees may treat their employers as agents of insurer. If that be so, for the failure of the employer to deduct insurance premium from the salary of the insurer and to make remittances to the insurer promptly, the insuredorhislegalheirscannotbeputtodisadvantageousposition. Theinsurerisboundtomakegoodforanylapsesattributabletothe employer. 8. In the present case, the employer did not deduct the premium amounts from the salary of the deceased due to willful absenteeism; however, the period of absenteeism was later W.A.No.551 of 2021 9 2025:KER:65261 regularized, and the salary wassubsequentlypaidtohim.Eventhe premiumswerepaidatabelatedstage,whentherewasnooccasion to pay the same. 9.ItisalsotobenotedthatinthecaseofChakreswarDuarah v.StateofAssam[(2006)3GLR95],thenonpaymentofsalarytothe employee for any reason casts an obligation on the employer to inform the insured. In view of the aforesaid findings, this writ appeal has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writappealstandsdismissed.Noorderasto costs. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC