GENERAL MANAGER HOTEL KANISHKA Vs. SAROJ ATTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.95 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the General Manager, Hotel Kanishka of ITDC, New Delhi, opposite party No. 1 (revision petitioner herein) has been held liable to pay to the complainant the insurance amount together with interest @ 15% per annum from 19.7.90.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that opposite party No. 2-LIC of India (respondent No. 2 herein) issued an insurance policy for Rs. 25,000/- effective from 30.8.89 in favour of one Sudhir Attal, an employee of opposite party No. 1 under the Salary Savings Scheme. One of the features of the scheme was that the employer undertook to deduct the monthly premium from the salary payable to the insured employee and to remit the same to the LIC. Sudhir Attal, the insured fell ill on 1.3.90, proceeded on leave and died on 13.7.90. His mother Smt. Saroj Attal, as nominee under the policy, claimed the amount from opposite party No. 2 by letter dated 19.7.90. The claim was repudiated by letter dated 26.7.90 on the ground that the policy had lapsed on 23.5.90 on account of non-payment of monthly premium for the months of May and June, 90. She, therefore, filed a complaint in the District Forum impleading Hotel Kanishka as opposite party No. 1 and LIC as opposite party No. 2. By order dated 14.2.94, the District Forum held that there was deficiency of service as far as both the opposite parties were concerned and accordingly directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of the insurance policy in equal proportion alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of claim till date of payment besides Rs. 1,000/- each as compensation.

(3.) IN the revision petition against this order, the petitioner-employer has stressed, inter alia, that it was not the responsibility of the employer to ensure payment of premium since there was no privity of contract between the employer and the L.I.C of India and that therefore, LIC is solely responsible for all contigencies arising therefrom. We have heard the case and carefully gone through the available records. During the hearing, Counsel for the revision petitioner produced a copy of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 18.3.96 in State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, LIC and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 1996=II (1996) CPJ 31(SC).setting aside the order of the National Commission in F.A. No. 510/92, Divisional Manager, LIC v. Haribandhu Setha and Ors., (JT 1996 (4) SC 288). In their order, the Supreme Court of India inter alia held as follows: