LIC OF INDIA Vs. RADHEY SHAYAM KEDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, both the parties have filed separate appeals. FA/126/2009 has been filed by LIC of India (herein referred to as appellant) , which had partly allowed the complaint of Shri Radhey Shayam Kedia & Ors. Respondents herein and original complainants before the State Commission. FA/190/2009 has been filed by Shri Radhey Shayam Kedia & Ors./original complainants seeking interest on the awarded amount.

(2.) SINCE the parties, as also the facts are common and arise out of the same complaint, it is proposed to dispose of these appeals through a single order by taking the facts from FA No. 126/2009.

(3.) APPELLANTS /Insurance Company on being served filed a written rejoinder. It was specifically stated therein that an LIC agent is not authorized to collect premium on behalf of the insurance company and when he collects premium from the policy holder to deposit the same with the insurance company, he acts as an agent of the policy holder - in this case the respondents and not the LIC/ Insurance Company. This has been clearly stated in Section 8 Sub -Section 4 of the Agents Regulations, 1972. It was further contended that so far as the three demand drafts were concerned, these contained only one yearly premium payment for each of the policy, whereas for all the three policies, two yearly premiums were due. It was the respondents, in fact, who vide their letter dated 10 -04 -1997, had requested appellant/insurance Company to return their respective demand drafts to enable them to pay the premium by cash and it was under these circumstances that the drafts were returned. However, appellants/insurance Company had no knowledge regarding the payment of cash by the respondents to OP -6(Agent), as contended by them. It was further denied that respondents had sent any application for revival of the policies and in any case, policies cannot be revived on adhoc basis, particularly since some of the policies had lapsed for more than five years because of non -payment of premium and as per the rules; these could not be revived. In view of these facts, there was no deficiency in service.