INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. K RAMA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.6.2002 passed in Case No.15/1999 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur (for short the "district Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in not making the payment of the double accident benefit of Rs.50,000/- was dismissed.

(2.) Admittedly, the deceased life assured A. K. Tiwari was employed as Assistant Engineer, Rani Awanti Bai Sagar Pariyojna, Jabalpur, who obtained a Jeevan Mitra Double Cover Endowment Plan With Profits (With Accident Benefit) Policy No.370527136 of the table and term 68-20 of the sum assured of Rs.50,000/-, mode of payment of premium quarterly of Rs.937/- issued on 28.2.1994 with the date of commencement of the policy was 28.1.1994. The life assured did not make the payment of premium due on 28.10.1995. However, the life assured paid the premium of Rs.937/- on 28.1.1996, which was adjusted towards quarterly premium due on 28.10.1995 towards the lapsed policy. The life assured died on 25.3.1996 due to cardiac failure due to coronary heart disease as per post mortem report. On submission of the claim, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short "lic") made the payment on 10.12.1996 as ex-gratia payment of Rs.56,467/- after deducting the due premium of December, 1995 and 1996. The appellant filed the complaint, which was resisted. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding it as barred by time and on merits held that notice under Sec.50 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short "insurance Act") was not necessary as it was the duty of the life assured to pay the premiums due even in the absence of premium notice. Therefore, the LIC for the policy which had lapsed in February, 1996 prior to the death of the life assured on 25.3.1996 rightly made the ex-gratia payment after adjustment of the premium due treating the payment of the premiums of the whole two years.

(3.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the complaint could not have been dismissed as barred by time as it is well-settled that Public Authority should not resort to plea of limitation to defeat the just claim of citizens though such plea is permissible under law, which can only be taken when the claim is not well-founded. See, the decisions of the Supreme Court in Madras Port Trust V/s. Hymanshu International, 1979 4 SCC 176, and Mahavir Kishore and Ors. V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 AIR(SC) 313, and a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in State of M. P. V/s. Ramrao Krishnarao Palsikar,1990 JLJ 315, followed by this Commission in Appeal No.547/1999 decided on 21.5.2001, Dilip Kumar Jain V/s. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.