Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 143 (PAT)

Chameli Khatun v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-27

S.K.KATRIAR

body2000
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha for the petitioner, Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, for respondent Life Insurance Corporation, and Mr. Vikash Jain, GP IV, for the respondent District Board, Sahebganj. 2. A hapless widow is the petitioner before this Court for an appropriate direction to the respondents regarding payment of Group Insurance payable to her after the death of her husband. The petitioners late husband Abul Kalam, was a class IV employee of respondent no. 5 (the District Board, Sahebganj), died in harness on 8.11.94, on which date the insured sum became payable. The maximum amount payable was a sum of Rs.50,000/-. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made efforts with the respondents for payment of the insured sum. She could receive Rs.2235.62p. only from respondent no.4 (the Life Insurance Corporation), (LIC, in short) which expressed inability to pay the balance of the insured sum for the reason that the premiums were paid belatedly. 3. The LIC in its counter affidavit has given the following chart to establish that the premiums were forwarded by respondent no.5 to respondent no.4 belatedly, and was a habitual defaulter :- Due date Date of deposit 20.6.94 18.8.94 20.7.94 15.10.94 20.8.94 15.10.94 20.9.94 15.10.94 20.10.94 28.1.95 20.11.94 24.4.95 20.12.94 24.4.95 According to the learned counsel for the LIC, in an insurance scheme of the nature in question where the instalments are payable once every month, the Corporation has adopted a liberal policy and gives a grace period of 15 days for payment of the instalment every month. 4 Mr.Vikash Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent District Board, submits that it is manifest from the pleadings that the Insurance Company had accepted the premiums, never disowned the premiums sent on 28.1.95, which was really meant for the payment towards the instalment which had fallen due on 20.10.94. He further invites my attention to the aforesaid last two payments, both made on 24.4.95, which were meant for the instalments which had fallen due on 20.11.94 and 20.12.94. Having accepted the premiums, in his submission it is no longer open to the LIC to turn round and disown the premiums so accepted. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.5 is a good deal dependent on the State Govt. for funds. Respondent no.5 has received the grants belatedly from the State Government, hence the delay in payment of the premiums. Learned counsel further submits that respondent no.5 is a good deal dependent on the State Govt. for funds. Respondent no.5 has received the grants belatedly from the State Government, hence the delay in payment of the premiums. He further invites my attention to the following clause of the insurance scheme which is set out in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit of respondent no.2 and 5 :- "The contributions are paid by the employees themselves in full. The Employer acts only as a coordinator. The monthly contributions are deducted from the salaries of the employees and remitted to LIC every month." He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 229 (Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vs. Basanti Devi). 5 Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this writ petition has to be allowed. It is manifest from the aforesaid chart set out in the counter affidavit of respondent no.4, that respondent no.5 had paid the premiums to respondent no.4 belatedly. It was beyond the period of 15 days allowed by way of grace period every month for depositing the premium. In that view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that LIC is justified in refusing to make payment of the insured sum to the petitioner. As stated above the LIC has already paid a sum of Rs.2235.6 p. to the petitioner which was payable to her in accordance with the scheme in question. 5.1. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has next submitted that it is a good deal dependent on the State Government for grant of funds to carry out its own duties and functions. I am unable to accede to this contention for two reasons, i.e. this is a matter between the State Govt. and respondent no.5, with which the petitioner has no concern; secondly respondent no.5 has its own sources of income under Act of the Legislature. In other words, it has its own source of revenue and, therefore, it will have to function efficiently to meet its obligations. Failure to carry out its obligation and run the administration efficiently cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner. 5.2. Learned counsel has relied on the aforesaid paragraph of the scheme set out hereinabove which, inter alia, says that "the contributions are paid by the employees themselves in full. Failure to carry out its obligation and run the administration efficiently cannot defeat the claim of the petitioner. 5.2. Learned counsel has relied on the aforesaid paragraph of the scheme set out hereinabove which, inter alia, says that "the contributions are paid by the employees themselves in full. The Employer acts only as a coordinator." I am unable to accede to this contention for the reason that the employer, respondent no.5 in the present case, has undertaken upon itself to deduct the premium amount from the salary of the petitioner and forward it to the LIC. Having failed to do so, the aforesaid clause cannot enure to the benefit of respondent no.5 in an effort to defeat the petitioners claim. Furthermore, the aforesaid clause does not determine the inter-se relationship or the mutually distributed responsibility ties between the employer and the employee. The same operates between the LIC on the one hand, and the employer and the employee on the other hand. As has been held hereinabove, the employer in the present case had taken upon itself the duty to deduct the premium amount from the salary of the petitioner and send it to respondent no.4. Respondent no.5 having failed to do so punctually resulted in lapsed policy on the date of death, it will have to pay the insured sum to the petitioner. 6 The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The same dealt with the rights and obligations under a particular scheme of LIC. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with costs and interest. Respondent no.5 (the District Board, Sahebganj) is hereby directed to make payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 47765/- to the petitioner with interest within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% from 8.11.94 till the date of payment. Costs of this writ petition payable to the petitioner is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. All the three components shall be paid together.