LIC Vs. KAMLESH
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2007-9-3
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 13,2007

Lic Appellant
VERSUS
KAMLESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants LIC against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the District Forum, Kota in complaint No.41/98 by Which the complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to make payment in respect of seven policies of the deceased Dwarka Lal along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint and since the premium in question were not sent by respondent No. 2, the employer to the appellants in time, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5000 was ordered to be paid by respondent No. 2 as amount of compensation to the complainant respondent No. 1.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint against the appellants and against respondent No. 2 before the District Forum on 6.1.1998 inter alia stating that the deceased had taken seven policies bearing Nos. 181416092 for Rs. 50,000 on 14.8.1995, 181417574 for Rs. 5,000,181417575 for Rs. 5,000, 181417576 for Rs. 5,000, 181417577 for Rs. 5,000, 181417689 for Rs. 5,000 on 28.3.1996 and 181417941 for Rs.50,000 on 28.3.1997 from the appellants under he Salary Saving Scheme and as per terms of the policy the premium was to be deducted by respondent No. 2 from the salary of the deceased and thereafter it was to be sent by the employer to the appellants. It was further stated in the complaint that the deceased had died on 5.8.1997 and thereafter the claim was preferred by the complainant respondent No. 1 being the wife and nominee of the deceased before the office of the appellants but that claim was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 15.9.1997 on the ground that since the premium after April 1997 was not received by the appellants in respect of the above policies, therefore on the date of death the policies in question were lapsed one and thus claim was not payable and thereafter the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum on 29.6.1998 and they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 15.9.1997. It may further be stated here that no reply was filed by respondent No. 2, the employer. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Kota through impugned order dated 3.7.2001 had allowed the complaint as stated above inter alia holding that the appellants LIC only would be liable to make payment of the insured amount in respect of the above policies. Aggrieved from the said order of the District Forum, this appeal has been filed by the appellants, LIC.
(3.) IN this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that since the premium was not deducted in time by the employer respondent No. 2 and since on the date of death the policies were lapsed one, therefore, appellants were not liable to make payment of the above policies and further if LIC is held liable simultaneously the employer must be held liable and thus the findings of the District Forum to that extent are liable to be quashed and appeal be allowed. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent have supported the impugned order of the District Forum.;


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