THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KOTA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ORS. Vs. THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners -the Branch Manager and General Manager of the Kota Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Baran dated 6.6.2007 by which the petitioners have been required to pay to the respondent -claimant the amount of Rs. 50,000 along with interest towards the insurance coverage for death claim of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Permanent Lok Adalat has absolved the respondent No. 3 -insurance company of his liability on the premise that the premium was to be made on 1.9.1999, but the petitioner -bank delayed and made such payment belatedly on 23.9.2014. Reliance has been made on the provisions of Sec. 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat has held that the insurance company cannot be held liable till it has not received the amount of premium. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the respondent -claimant took a loan from the bank along with insurance policy for personal accident under the Government scheme meant for Kisan Credit Card holders and paid Rs. 15/ - to Simli Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Baran. The insurance coverage was of Rs. 50,000 for a period of one year. Similar insurance coverage was extended to several other farmers, who were issued Kishan Credit Card. Petitioner -bank had collected premium from such farmers through Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti and sent consolidated cheque of other premium amounts to the respondent. It was a combined amount of several farmers.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation & Ors. v/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker, : AIR 2005 SC 3087 and submits that present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment. It was held therein that employer, though not agent of LIC qua its Regulations, it can be inferred that employer has implied authority to act as agent of LIC in view of Sec. 186 of Contract Act. Failure on the part of employer to make payment of premium would not disentitle the employer to the payment of assured amount.

(3.) Shri Sanjay Singhal, learned counsel for the claimant and Shri Ravindra Tomar on behalf of Shri Rishipal Agarwal, learned counsel for the insurance company have opposed the writ petition.