MCD/DESU Vs. BASANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing both sides and perusing the records of the case we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the decision rendered by the State Commission, Delhi, as per its impugned order dated 28.1.1994 is not vitiated by any illegality or error and that this appeal has only to be dismissed.

(2.) One Shri Bhim Singh was an employee of DESU (appellant in this appeal). He had taken out a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the Salary Deduction Scheme, as per the proposal dated 30.11.1991 submitted by him. The proposal was forwarded by DESU to the Life Innsurance Corporation of India and it was ultimately accepted by the L.I.C. and the policy came into force with effect from 28.1.1992. An amount of Rs. 636/- representing the first two monthly premiums had been deposited by DESU with the Life Insurance Corporation on 22.1.1992. The subsequent premiums were to be paid by DESU after deducting the same every month from the salary of the employee, Shri Bhim Singh.

(3.) Unfortunately, Shri Bhim Singh passed away on 17.8.1992. Thereupon, his widow informed the Insurance Company about her husband's death and requested for payment of the amount due under the Policy. To her utter dismay, the L.I.C. disclaimed liability for payment of any amount to her on the ground that the premium due for the first two months alone had been paid in respect of the policy and thereafter default had been committed in payment of the subsequent premium and as a consequence thereof the policy had lapsed. Aggrieved by the said repudiation of liability by the insurer, the widow of the insured preferred a complaint before the State Commission, Delhi, seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as due to her under the insurance policy and also a further amount of Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and pain as well as an additional Rs. 5,000/- for expenses of litigation etc. It was alleged by the Complainant that Shri Bhim Singh has died as a result of having been hit and knocked down by a cow and hence in addition to the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for which insurance had been taken, she was also entitled to be paid a further equal amount by way of accident benefit.