- (1.) The instant first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.95/1996 dismissing the suit of the appellant plaintiff, claiming a sum of Rs. 68,950/- as claim on account of death of his wife Smt.Kamla Devi, in terms of joint Insurance Policy No. 180536249 issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation").
(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit claiming Rs. 68,950/- in the Court of District Judge, Ajmer, which was later on, transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff-appellant, while working as labourer in M/s. Aditya Mill, Kishangarh, took a life insurance policy bearing No. 180536249 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the Corporation jointly in his name and in the name of his wife late Smt. Kamla Devi. The said policy was issued by the Corporation under the "Salary Saving Scheme" launched by it and the monthly premium was Rs. 291/-. It was further contended by the plaintiff-appellant that as per the said scheme, there was an agreement between the Corporation and the employer M/s. Aditya Mill that the employer will deduct the premium amount from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant and then remit it to the Corporation. According to the plaintiff-appellant, it was the duty of the employer to deduct and send the premium to the Corporation and, at the same time, it was the duty of the Corporation to inform the employer in case of non-receipt of the premium amount and despite information if the employer did not pay the due premium, the Corporation was under an obligation to inform about the non-receipt of premium from employer, to the plaintiff-appellant. It was further stated by the plaintiff-appellant that his wife Smt. Kamla Devi died on 31.08.1994 and information about the sad demise of his wife was given by him to the Corporation on 12.09.1994 with application claiming the insured amount under the insurance policy.
(3.) It was further contended by the plaintiff-appellant that in 1st week of November, 1994, he came to know that his employer was not deducting and sending the premium amount to the Corporation under the policy. This fact that the employer was not sending the premium amount to the Corporation was not made known to the plaintiff-appellant as he did not receive any information whatsoever from the Corporation in this regard. On 9th November 1994, the plaintiff-appellant wrote a detailed letter to the Branch Manager of the Corporation intimating therein that since after taking policy, the employer did not deduct the premium and send it to the Corporation for five months, he was sending five months' premium to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- through Field Agent namely, Shri Suresh Kumar Vaishnav and requested him to deposit the same. The Field Agent gave receipt showing deposit of the premium amount for two months, while returning the remaining amount with the saying that the Corporation accepted only two months' premium and rest premium amount of three months would be received by the Corporation through the employer, after deducting from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant. It was further mentioned in the letter that from December, 1992 to March, 1993 double deductions were made and sent to the Corporation. It was further stated that the Mill of the employer was locked from 08.05.1993 to 22.09.1993 and as a result of which, the salary of April 1993 could not be paid in time, therefore, the deduction of premium from April 1993 to September 1993 could not be made and remitted. It was further stated by the plaintiff-appellant that for the period from October 1993 to August 1994, except for the month of December 1993, premium was paid. On receipt of letter dated 14.09.1994, the plaintiff-appellant again wrote a letter to the Corporation on 03.12.1994 stating that he did not receive the letter dated 06.04.1994 as mentioned in the letter dated 14.09.1994, nor employer has informed him about the same. It was further contended by the plaintiff-appellant that after submission of claim application, the Corporation sought various information which were given by the plaintiff-appellant. He has also furnished the receipts showing deposit of two months premium by Suresh Kumar Vaishnav. However, the Corporation, vide letter dated 26.04.1996, informed the plaintiff-appellant that since there are nine defaults in making payment of premium, no claim could be granted under the policy in question. According to the plaintiff-appellant, if there was any default in payment of premium, he was not responsible for the same as it was incumbent on the part of the employer to deduct the premium from the salary of the plaintiff-appellant and remit it to the Corporation. If there was any default in sending the premium by the employer, no liability can be fastened on the plaintiff-appellant as he was not informed by the Corporation about the nonpayment of premium by the employer.;