GANESH PRASAD Vs. LAL JANAMAJAY NATH SHAHDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986) has been filed by the appellant-complainant against the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jhalawar in Complaint Case No.37/2003 by which the complaint of the appellant-complainant was dismissed.

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances: on 17.10.2003, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act of 1986 before the learned District Forum, Jhalawar stating inter alia that her husband Shakir Ali (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was working in the office of the respondent No.3 Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation"), Jhalawar and on 28.8.1999, deceased secured two insurance policies under salary saving scheme bearing Nos.181164159 and 1811234 of Rs.50,000 each from the office of the respondent No.1 Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short "the LIC"), Jhalawar and the premium of both the policies was Rs.303 and Rs.497 p. m. respectively and the amount of premium of these two insurance policies was to be deducted from the salary of the deceased and thereafter, it was to be sent to the LIC by the Corporation-employer (respondent Nos.3 and 4 ). The further case of the appellant-complainant was that deceased fell ill in the month of December, 1999 from the disease of jaundice and he died on 7.11.2000. The further case of the appellant-complainant was that during the period of illness, deceased did not attend office of the respondent No.3 Corporation and for that reason, his salary was not drawn and when salary was not drawn, payments of the premium of his two insurance policies were also not sent by the Corporation-respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the LIC. The further case of the appellant-complainant was that a written request was made by the deceased before the respondent No.4 General Manager of the Corporation that since his salary was not being drawn, therefore, payments of premium of his two insurance policies were also not being made to the LIC, therefore, payments of premium of his two insurance policies be made to the LIC from his night allowance, but the same was not done by the respondent No.4. Since the payments of premium of two insurance policies were not made by the respondent No.4 to the LIC, therefore, deceased became defaulter in making payments of premium of insurance policies and, therefore, benefit of the aforesaid two insurance policies was not given to the appellant-complainant by the LIC, on death of the deceased. The further case of the appellant-complainant was that even the respondent No.1 Manager of the LIC did not inform the deceased during his life time about default committed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Corporation) in paying the amounts of premium of his two insurance policies and according to the appellant-complainant, the respondent No.1 for the first time informed through letters dated 8.8.2002 and 27.8.2002 about the default. Thereafter, the complainant-appellant met with the employees of the Corporation (respondent Nos.3 and 4) as well as of LIC (respondent Nos.1 and 2), but the benefit of the aforesaid two insurance policies was not made available to her on the ground that the said policies had lapsed because of non-payment of premium of these two insurance policies for some months. Hence, this complaint. A reply was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (LIC) admitting the fact that two insurance policies were issued to the deceased under salary saving scheme and as per terms of the Scheme, the amount of premium was to be deducted by the employer (in the present case Corporation-respondent Nos.3 and 4) and, thereafter, the same was to be sent by them to the LIC (respondent Nos.1 and 2 ). Since the amount of premium of the aforesaid two insurance policies of the deceased was not sent by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 Corporation to the LIC (respondent Nos.1 and 2), therefore, deceased had become defaulter. It was further submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (LIC) that the complainant-appellant has herself admitted the fact that since no salary was being paid to the deceased, therefore, deductions from his salary were also not being made, therefore, in these circumstances, a request was made by deceased to the respondent No.4 General Manager of the Corporation for making the payments of premium of the aforesaid two insurance policies to the LIC from his night allowance, meaning thereby deceased was aware during his lifetime that payments of premium of his two insurance policies from his salary were not being made to the LIC. Hence, it was submitted that since deceased had become defaulter, therefore, complainant-appellant was not entitled to get benefit of the two insurance policies of the deceased and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. A separate reply was filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Corporation) on 19.12.2003 denying the fact that deceased had ever approached the respondent No.4 for making payments of premium of two insurance policies from his night allowance and, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the respondent No.4. It was further submitted by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Corporation) that since in the month of December, 1999 deceased fell ill and he was on medical leave, therefore, his salary bills were not prepared and when salary bills were not prepared, deductions from his salary were not made and when deductions were not made, amounts of premium of insurance policies were not sent by the Corporation to LIC. Therefore, in these circumstances, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Corporation) cannot be held guilty or liable and the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum, Jhalawar through impugned order dated 20.2.2004 dismissed the complaint of the appellant-complainant holding inter alia that the fact that the deceased made a request to the respondent No.4 General Manager of Corporation that the payments of premium of insurance policies be made to the LIC from his night allowance, has not been proved and established by the complainant-appellant and, further, since both the insurance policies of the deceased had lapsed because of non-payments of premium of these two insurance policies to LIC, therefore, complainant-appellant was not entitled to the relief sought for. Aggrieved from the said order dated 20.2.2004 passed by the learned District Forum, Jhalawar, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant.

(3.) In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-complainant: (i) That in the case of insurance policy under salary saving scheme, the liability of making payment of premium of LIC is that of the employer (in the present to Corporation, respondent Nos.3 and 4) because the employer works here as an agent and when the employer, Corporation (respondent Nos.3 and 4) have not made payments of premium of two insurance policies of the deceased to the LIC (respondent Nos.1 and 2), for that, the deceased or complainant-appellant should not suffer as it was the bounden duty of the Corporation-employer to make payments of premium of insurance policies to the LIC. (ii) That, in case, payments of premium of insurance policies were not made to the LIC, since the deceased had already approached the respondent No.4 General Manager of the Corporation with the request that payments of premium of insurance policies be made to LIC from his night allowance, therefore, from that point of view also, deceased should have not been treated defaulter. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and impugned order of the learned District Forum be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to give benefit under the aforesaid insurance policies of the deceased, to the complainant-appellant.