LATA SAINI W/O LATE JAGAT RAM SAINI AND ORS Vs. SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-7-4
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 01,2010

Lata Saini W/O Late Jagat Ram Saini And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Secretary Education, Government Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Shimla on 14.09.2009. By means of this order complaint filed by the appellants has been dismissed.
(2.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that late Shri Jagat Ram Saini was working in Government Middle School, Mool Koti (Mashobra), Tehsil and District Shimla as drawing teacher. While in service he died on 10.07.2006. Government of Himachal Pradesh with a view to provide insurance cover under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme had covered the risk of all of its employees with effect from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2005 by obtaining insurance cover from respondent No. 4. It is admitted between the parties that this scheme was ordered to be renewed from 1st March, 2006 and became effective from 05.04.2006. Again on this factual aspect, there was no controversy between the parties.
(3.) NOW the dispute starts. Shri Jagat Ram Saini died on 10.07.2006. As already noted hereinabove, Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme was in force having become effective on or before 5th April, 2006. Under these circumstances, respondent No. 1 had issued instructions for getting the entire staff insured and to deduct premium from salary of such staff. However it appears that notification dated 01.03.2006 was circulated on 12.07.2006, when the predecessor -in -interest of the appellants was already dead. We are constrained to observe in this behalf that the respondent No. 1 when had made the scheme effective on and with effect from 5th April, 2006, why the notification was not circulated immediately needs to be explained by learned A. D. A. We called upon him to justify for non -issuance of notification till 12th July, 2006, his argument that whatever was possible for the benefit of its staff as a beneficial measure, was done. However there is nothing on record to justify the time period between 5th April, 2006 to 12th July, 2006. Faced with this situation, learned A. D. A. at this stage referred letter annexure -B, dated 08.09.2006, on the subject Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme for all regular, ad -hoc, part time, contractual and daily wages employees of Government Departments. Alongwith this annexure, list is attached as annexure -C, wherein name of deceased Shri Jagat Ram Saini does not figure. The amount deducted towards premium of the employees shown in letter, dated 08.09.2006 contained as annexure -C alongwith photostat copy of bank draft favouring respondent No. 4 -Insurance Company. Mr. Anup Sharma, learned A. D. A. at this stage pointed out that immediately after receipt of the said letter by respondent No. 3, he immediately acted upon it and deducted the amount of premium from each one of the employees working under it and remitted the amount. Therefore there was no negligence committed by respondent No. 3.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.