Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 191 (CHH)

JILA SAHARI VIKAS ABHIKARAN v. DULIYA RANGARI

2006-03-17

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2006
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shrj V.K. Agarwal, President;- . 1. This appeal, under section 15 of the, Consumer Protection Act, 198?, is directed against the order Dt. 24.05.2005 in complaint No.62/2004, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (hereinafter called the "District Forum" for short) directing the appellant to pay to the complainant! respondent No. 1 assured amount of Rs.20,000/- under the "Jan Shree Bima Yojana - Minimata Sahari Nirdhan Bima Yojana" (hereinafter called Yojana' for short). 2. Indisputably the life assured was Late Bhagwat Rangari. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time the premium payable by the life assured was to be collected by the present appellant, which in turn along with its contribution as per the Yojana, was to remit the same to the respondent No.2 Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC' for short). It is further not in dispute that the complainant is the beneficiary under the said policy being the nominee of life assured Late Bhagwat Rangari. It is further not in dispute that the life assured died on 16.06.2003. The complaint respondent No.1 herein laid claim with the LIC for payment of the assured amount. However, since the amount was not paid, the complainant approached the District Forum. It was prayed in the complaint that assured amount of Rs. 25,000/-with interest and compensation and cost be awarded. 3. The complaint was resisted by the appellant as well as respondent NO.2 LIC. According to respondent No.2 LIC the premium was not sent to it by the appellant within the time as prescribed under the Yojana. The respondent NO.2 LIC in its written version raised dispute regarding complainant being the beneficiary under the said Yojana. It was also averred that since the complainant failed to furnish adequate proof, full particulars of her entitlement, her claim could riot be processed and settled. It was also averred that the assured amount was Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/-, as was averred by the complainant. 4. The appellant in its written version resisted the claim on the ground that consolidated amount of premium received from all the members of the Group Insurance Scheme under the Yojana was remitted by it, to the LIC on 17.06.2003. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service by the appellant. Hence they were not liable to pay compensation. 5. 4. The appellant in its written version resisted the claim on the ground that consolidated amount of premium received from all the members of the Group Insurance Scheme under the Yojana was remitted by it, to the LIC on 17.06.2003. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service by the appellant. Hence they were not liable to pay compensation. 5. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the appellant did not remit the amount within the period prescribed under the Yojana and therefore it had committed deficiency in service. It was therefore held to be liable to pay assured amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1. 6. Learned counsel for parties were heard. Record perused. 7. The finding of the District Forum that the assured amount under the Yojana was Rs. 20,000/- and was not Rs. 25,000/- is not challenged in this appeal. It also appears to be so, from the Yojana, and thus it is clear that the assured amount as mentioned in the Master Policy was Rs. 20,000/-. 8. The question that now arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant is entitled to receive the amount as the beneficiary under the group insurance scheme; availed of by the life assured deceased Late Bhagwat Rangari ? 9. In the above context, it may be seen that the premium amount was paid by the deceased Late Bhagwat Rangari on 13.06.2003 as would be clear from the copy of receipt issued by respondent NO.3 Municipal Corporation. It further appears that the premium amount was collected by Municipal Corporation and in turn it was sent to the present appellant, who later on sent the consolidated premium to LIC the respondent NO.2 herein. Thus, under the Yojana the life assured Late Bhagwat Rangari paid the insurance amount within one month of the expiry of previous policy, which was the grace period provided under the terms of Yojana. It further appears that after having received the amount the appellant remitted the consolidated amount to LIC, It however appears that the contribution payable by the appellant and which also ought to have been sent was not so remitted to LIC. The said contribution appears to have been sent subsequently after the grace period. Thus it appears that appellant was deficient in not remitting the amount of its contribution to the LIC. The said contribution appears to have been sent subsequently after the grace period. Thus it appears that appellant was deficient in not remitting the amount of its contribution to the LIC. However, merely because the appellant delayed remittance of its contribution to the LIC, that by itself would not absolve the LIC from its liability to pay the assured amount to the complainant. Since, as per terms of the Yojana the amount was to be collected by the appellant and then it was to remit the said amount to the Lie, hence, the appellant for that purpose acted as agent of respondent NO.2 LIC. That being so, the premium amount having been paid by the deceased life assured to the appellant, within the grace period, the protective cover by LIC as provided under the Yojana was available to the nominee of the deceased and the assured amount was thus payable on her death. The LIC is also therefore liable to pay the assured amount to the complainant beneficiary. 10. It may be mentioned in the above Context that the LIC also tried to raise a contest regarding the entitlement of appellant Smt. Duliya Rangari to receive the amount. It may be noticed in the above context, that the declaration form, copy of which has been filed in the District Forum, obtained under the Yojana clearly shows that Smt. Duliya Rangari is the beneficiary of the life assured Late Bhagwat Rangari. In view of the above the Contest raised by the LIC about the entitlement of the complainant, to receive the amount, does not appear to be well founded. 11. In view of the above, it appears that appellant as well as the respondent NO.2 LIC were deficient in service, resulting in delay and non-payment of assured amount to the beneficiary, the complainant respondent No.1. Accordingly the impugned order is modified and it is directed that the assured amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest and other terms and conditions as imposed by the District Forum shall be payable jointly and severally by the appellant as well as the respondent NO.2 LIC. With the above modification in the impugned order, this appeal stands disposed off. Complaint Partly Allowed.