Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant was a policy holder under OP No.1 having two policies bearing Nos. 571318651 and 572077843 for sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively on payment of monthly premium  under Salary Saving Scheme of Life Insurance Corporation while the policy holder was working as an agent under the OPs. The policy holder expired on 19.7.2013. After death, the complainant who is the nominee and son of the policy holder applied for settlement of claim but the same was repudiated for which the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the premiums are not paid in a particular date for which the policy is in a lapsed condition, as such the paid up value has already been paid for policy No. 571318651 but due to non-payment of premium for other policy, complainant was refused to pay any amount. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            i. The OP 1 & 2 shall pay the sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant after adjusting the 14 unpaid premiums and advance if any unpaid with interest as per prevailing rates.

ii. The OP 1 & 2 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

iii. All the above directions shall be complied within 30 days of date of this order, failing which, the total sum will carry 12% interest per annum till its realization.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the policy holder being an agent of the OPs cannot claim the Salary Saving Scheme because he is neither the employee nor the OPs are employer. He also submitted that learned District Forum ought to have considered such fact while passing the impugned order. He also submitted that the complainant has not proved that his father was an employee under the OPs so that the principle under Salary Saving Scheme would be applicable to this case. Learned District Forum ought to have considered that the case does not come under the purview of Salary Saving Scheme. Therefore, he submitted that the entire impugned order is illegal and improper and it should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the instant case although the policy holder was the agent of OPs but OPs were behaving like employer by undertaking to deduct the LIC premium from his commission payable to the policy holder. There is no relationship between the policy holder and the insurer so far payment of premium is concerned. If at all there is any non-payment of premium, it is the OPs’ liability  for the lapse of the policy. Therefore, he supports the impugned order and submits to dismiss the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for  respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the policy holder was the agent under the OPs. It is also admitted fact that the OPs were deducting the monthly premium under Salary Saving Scheme from the Commission payable to the policy holder. Thus, the OPs even if the principal and the policy holder is the agent but in the facts and circumstances, the OPs were employer and the policy holder is the employee to consider the Salary Saving Scheme.

10.    Be that as it may, due to non-payment of premium the policy was in lapsed condition. Since the policy holder does not pay the premium directly to the OPs – LICI but the premium deducted by the OPs and remitted to the OPs, the question of responsibility upon the policy holder is almost remote and it is responsibility of the OPs to see that the premium is paid regularly by deducting same from the commission of the policy holder. In this regard the learned District Forum has relied upon the deciosn of  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vrs. Basanti Devi and another AIR 2000 Supreme Court 43 where it is held that the employer who is under obligation to remit the  premium to the LIC is bound to intimate the employee also  if at all any premium is not paid. In this case, it was the duty of the LICI to inform the policy holder but same has not been followed in this case. Rather in the said Basanti Devi case, it has been clearly held that the entire responsibility of payment of  premiums lies with the employer and any default in payment the  premium, LIC  is responsible for the lapses  and not the employee. Since the policy holder worked as employee under Salary Saving Scheme and the OPs   conduct like employer, rightly the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by fixing responsibility on the appellants. We, therefore, find no apparent error in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. It is further made clear that if the direction of the learned District Forum would not be complied within 45 days, the entire order impugned will be complied with 12% interest per annum from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal sans merit. As such appeal is dismsied.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.