Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

          3.  The case of the complainant is that the 1st complainant's husband died on 26.04.03 in an accident and drowned in the sea. The deceased sustained heavy injuries on his eyes and forehead on the sudden hit of the Kattamaram and drowned in the sea accidentally. The deceased was enlisted in the group insurance policy of the 1st opposite party under the Janatha Personal Accident Policy through the 2nd opposite party, Matsyafed. The deceased was a member of the Kochuthura Fishermen Development and Welfare Co-operative Society. The scheme was intended for the fisherman who met with accidental death is covered for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through the 2nd opposite party. He remitted an amount of Rs.50/- on 16.4.2003 in the year 2003-2004. Consequent to the death , the legal heirs of the deceased claimed the insured amount through the 2nd opposite party which was repudiated by the 1st opposite party on the ground that the premium was remitted  long after his death.  The repudiation of claim was not proper and  just and  the complainants prayed for the  insured amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @18% and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

          7.  On going through the documents this Commission finds that the group insurance policy adopted and  implemented by the 6th respondent/2nd opposite party for the benefit of the fishermen under the Janatha Personal Accident Policy for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Accident policy was a period from 31.03.03 to 30.03.04 and the premium was collected by the Welfare Co-operative Societies under the 6th respondent/2nd opposite party. The complainant's husband died on 26.04.03 due to the accident and drowned in the sea. He remitted an amount of Rs.50/- to the Kochuthura Fisherman Welfare and Development Co-operative society which is a primary society of Matsyafed,  the 6th respondent. The scheme was  introduced from 31.03.03 and additional premium was remitted by the 6th respondent to the appellant on 30.5.03. It is an admitted fact that the 6th respondent collected the premium as the agent of the appellant/1st opposite party. It is also true that the society was acting as an agent of its member also. So it cannot go without saying that the principal agent relationship between the appellant and the 6th respondent/ 2nd opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the 6th respondent collected premium for 31722 persons on the 1st instance and the additional number of 14,193 wherein the deceased included in the 2nd list. The extended period for the premium was also within the knowledge and consent of the appellant.  The contention that the additional premium paid for the period from 30.05.03 to 30.03.04 was also for a period of yearly policy and  was included in the master policy.  While a policy is meant as an yearly policy, the appellant is estopped from saying that the policy is prevalent only for a period from 30.5.2003 to 30.03.2004.  As the second premium for 14193 persons having been  accepted by the appellant on 30.5.03 and  resisting of payment towards the insurance policy by the appellant is unsustainable.  The remittance of premium by the deceased was on 16.4.03 and he died only on 26.04.03. On the part of the insured he had already paid the premium before his death to the agent who was acting upon the appellant. So the vicarious liability of the appellant cannot be absolved by repudiating the claim. There is no case pleaded that there is any delay in remitting the premium to the appellant. It is with the consent of the appellant, the 6th respondent collected the premium from the fishermen. There is no separate policy issued for the additional persons which means they were included in the master policy  under the Janatha  Accident Policy issued by the appellant as early as on 30.03.03. The premium was accepted on an understanding between the 6th respondent and the appellant. The master policy was issued to the matsyafed, 6th respondent and all the persons were included as beneficiaries under this policy. This was evidenced in the cross examination of DW1. It is also to be pointed out that the yearly policy means 12 months policy. In this case it could be from 30.3.03 to 30.03.04 only. After accepting the premium for one year contract the appellant is estopped from holding  that it was only for a period from 30.05.03 to 30.03.04. As per Ext. D4 the total sum insured for 45915 fishermen the sum insured comes to Rs.6887250000/- and the sum insured comes to Rs.1,50,000/- per person and  the policy period was from  31.03.03 to midnight 30.03.04. So the appellant cannot blow hot and cold that the policy cover was only  from  30.05.03 to 30.03.04 Since the 6th respondent acted upon as the agent of the appellant, the appellant as the principal who accepted the premium under one master policy is liable to pay the insured sum to the complainants.