Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/253/2015

Manjula - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

Appellant in person

12 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	253 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.02.2016

 

Manjula, House No.1086, Sector 26, Panchkula.

.…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]     LIC of India, Jeevan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2]     Indian Railways,C & W, SSE, Chandigarh.

3]     Union of India, Indian Railways, Dy. CMM/G, Diesel Locomotive Work, Varanasi.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

 

Smt. Manjula, appellant in person.

Sh. Vinod Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. S. S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

Appeal No.	:	262 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	12.02.2016

 

Indian Railways, through Amarjit Singh Sharma, SSE, C & W, of Northern Railway at Chandigarh.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1]     Mrs. Manjula resident of House No.1086, Sector 26, Panchkula.

….Respondent/Complainant.

2]     LIC of India, Jeevan Deep Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3]     Union of India, through Indian Railways, under General Manager Personnal, Diesel Locomotive Work, Varanasi – 2210004, U.P.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

 

Sh. S. S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

Smt. Manjula, respondent No.1 in person.

Sh. Vinod Verma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              Vide this common order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.253 of 2015 filed by the complainant (Smt. Manjula), and 262 of 2015 filed by Opposite Party No.2 (Indian Railways) against the order dated 07.08.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.238 of 2014 was allowed and the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed as under:-

“21]      In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the circumstances of the case, that the complainant i.e. mother/nominee of the policy holder is an old lady, whose husband is blind and also that deceased policyholder expired at the prime of his youth due to cancer, it is therefore ordered that OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally liable & directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, for the act of deficiency in services on their part, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim till it is paid. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-to the complainant. Thus, the complaint stands allowed in above terms.  

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 jointly & severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of lodging of the claim till it is paid, apart from paying the litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-.”

2.             The facts in brief are that the complainant’s son, namely, Mr. Abhishek Garg, was a Junior Clerk in Indian Railways at C & W, SSE, Chandigarh and was having LIC Policy bearing No.287398786 and the complainant was appointed as nominee.  It was stated that unfortunately, the son of complainant - Mr. Abhishek Garg expired on 07.11.2013 due to cancer. It was further stated that when the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1, after completing all the formalities and necessary documentation from her son’s office and his treating hospital, it refused to entertain her claim on the ground that the Policy pertained to B.O. Manduaalish Varanasi (U.P.) and hence, the claim had to be considered by B.O. 2 & J.  It was further stated that the deceased son of the complainant was working with Opposite Party No.2 at Chandigarh and his health problem was also known to it, as he was on medical leave.  It was further stated that the record regarding the Policy through employer was with the department.  It was further stated that the complainant’s son was suffering from cancer and was under treatment.  Opposite Party No.2 did not demand any premium amount from the complainant’s son during his life time. It was further stated that as per the information with the complainant, they did not deduct any premium and when the complainant’s son was absent, they were under duty as state agency as well as employer to inform the complainant’s son or his relatives to arrange for the premium. It was further stated that in these type of cases, LIC usually give notice to the employer and so in the present case, it could have been done and LIC could not ignore this fact. It was further stated that it was very difficult for the complainant to go to Varanasi to file the claim as her health do not allow her to travel. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.             When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to accept and pay the claim alongwith exemplary cost.

4.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement admitted the issuance of Policy, in question, in favor of son of the complainant and that the complainant was appointed as nominee.  It was also admitted that the claim should be raised at Varanasi and accordingly, the complainant was advised to approach the concerned branch.  It was further stated that even otherwise, as per the claimant’s statement form, attached with the complaint, the life assured was not in usual good health from August 2012 and was suffering from disease, which was confirmed by the medical attendants certificate. It was further stated that the claim could be sent through post to the concerned Branch, but as per information gathered, the Policy was lying lapsed since February 2013 for non-payment of premium, therefore, no sum was payable to the complainant. It was further stated that since the Policy was purchased at Varanasi Division, thus, the claim was not maintainable at Chandigarh before the Forum. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             Opposite Party No.2, in its written statement stated that Sh. Abhishek Garg joined in Ambala Division on 28.5.2013 and prior to that he was working with the office of Dy. CMM/G Diesel Locomotive Work, Varanasi.  It was further stated that the deceased joined the office in Ambala Division on 28.5.2013 and remained there upto 15.7.2013.  It was further stated that the salary of the deceased was made in the month of June, 2013 in Ambala Division and salary slip was given to Sh. Abhishek Garg on 27.6.2013, who was present on that day on duty.  It was further stated that deceased employee never informed the office of the Opposite Party No.2 with regard to the deduction of LIC premium and moreover, there was no record available in the office of Opposite Party No.2 in respect of the alleged Policy as no such information was given to it by anybody. It was further stated that as per circular Annexure   R-1, dated 08.01.2013, issued by Northern Railway, Ambala Division, the deduction of the premium of LIC Policies was discontinued and the employee concerned was informed to deposit the premium of the Policies with effect from 1.4.2013 in the concerned offices of the LIC.  It was further stated that the Policy pertained to the office at Varanasi and the said office had not been impleaded as party to the complaint. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

6.             Opposite Party No.3, in its written statement admitted the issuance of the alleged Policy.  It was stated that in fact, Sh. Abhishek Garg was on leave without pay and since there was no salary due towards the railways, no LIC Premium for the months of July, October to December 2012 and February to April, 2013 was deposited by Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure R-3/2 colly.). It was further stated that Sh. Abhishek Garg, during his posting in Varanasi, had given an undertaking while opting for the LIC Policy, in question, that in the event of leave without pay, receiving the salary without deductions and in the event of leaving the job and any other reason, beyond the control of Railways for not depositing the premium with the LIC of India, only he i.e. Abhishek Garg shall be responsible for all the consequences (Annexure R-3/1). It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

7.             The complainant filed rejoinder wherein she reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Party No.3.

8.          The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

9.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

10.           Feeling aggrieved, the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 have filed the present appeals.

11.           We have heard the complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 and have gone through the record of the case carefully.

12.           It is evident that son of the complainant, namely, Mr. Abhishek Garg was given service in Railways keeping in view his achievements in the field of sports. Perusal of record reveals that besides getting many other medals, he brought respect for the country by winning gold medal at International level of handball competition, which was organized at Dhaka. He subscribed to an Insurance Policy No.287398786  with date of commencement as 3.9.2011 (Page 4 of the Forum file) in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. As per terms of the Policy, a monthly premium of Rs.1,021/- was to be deducted and remitted to the Insurance Company. The son of the complainant was suffering from bone cancer and he was transferred from Varanasi Division to Ambala Division vide office order No.292 dated 12.04.2013, where he reported and joined on 6.5.2013. It was unfortunate that at a very young age, he died on 07.11.2013. It is also not in dispute that the employer i.e. respondent No.2 had started deducting an amount of Rs.1,021/- from salary of insured towards Policy, in question. As per     document (Annexure R-3/2), an amount of Rs.1,021/- each month was deducted from the salary of the deceased between November 2011 to April 2012. For the months of May and June 2012, an amount of Rs.2,531/- each was deducted. Due to illness i.e. bone cancer, the deceased remained on leave without pay in the month of July 2012. For that month, premium amount was not deducted and consequently, not paid to the insurance company. He rejoined and again premium amount was deducted in the months of August and September 2012 and paid to the Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.1. On account of his illness, the deceased remained on leave    without pay in the months of October, November and December, 2012.

13.           For above reasons, premium amount of Rs.1,021/- for each month was neither deducted nor paid to respondent No.1. Again deceased worked during the month of January 2013. Premium amount was deducted and paid to Opposite Party No.1. For the months of February, March and April 2013, on account of leave without pay (on medical grounds), the said premium was not deducted and consequently, not paid to Opposite Party No.1. As already stated above, his transfer was sanctioned by the competent authority vide letter dated 09.04.2013 and he was directed to report in the Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt. However, posting orders were issued on 27.5.2013. As per letter dated 27.05.2013 aforesaid, period between 06.05.2013 and 27.05.2013 was treated as waiting period for orders.  For the aforesaid period, nothing was paid. Sh. R. K. Chaudhary, Assistant Personnel Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Indian Railway, Varanasi in his affidavit dated 26.12.2015 in Para 3 has stated that LPC (Last Pay Certificate) shows/indicates deductions being made from the employee’s salary. The plea of Opposite Party No.2               that it was not aware regarding deduction of premium is,   thus, devoid of truth. Further it is noted from the affidavit dated 27.01.2016 of Sh. Amarjit Singh Sharma, SSE, C&W, Northern Railways, Chandigarh that besides payment of KaramchariKosh  in  the  sum  of  Rs.20,000/- on            11.12.2013 , salary for the  waiting  period  i.e. 6.5.2013         to  27.5.2013  in  the  sum  of   Rs.6,253/-  has  been           paid   to  the  complainant  only   on 22.1.2016   i.e. after    lapse of 2 ½ years. Even this payment against                        the   waiting  period  was  enough  to  take  care                      of  premium  for  six  months.  It  is  also  evident  from Annexure R-A appended with the aforesaid affidavit,             that  payment  in the sum of Rs.38,390/- on account of medical claim  of  Mr. Abhishek Garg  was  made  vide     cheque No.195493 dated 11.12.2015. As per Annexure A-1 appended with affidavit dated 18.12.2015 of A.O., LIC of India, Opposite Party/Respondent No.2 disbursed salary for the month of June, July and October 2013 but failed to deduct premium.

14.           Perusal of Annexure R-3/2 reveals that payment of premium commenced w.e.f. November 2011 and, as stated above, the same was continuously paid and the first lapse in non-payment of premium took place in July 2012. The contention of respondent No.2 that as per Circular (Annexure R-1), deposit of premium of LIC Policy was exclusively the responsibility of employee concerned cannot be accepted in view of contents of sub Para 3 of aforesaid circular, which reads as under:-

“Without bringing to the notice of the employee, deduction of insurance premium should not be stopped and apart from issuing general notice, personal notice should also be issued to the employee.”

The argument that the deceased during his posting in Varanasi had given an undertaking that in the event of leave without pay, receiving the salary without deductions etc., beyond the control of Railways for not depositing the premium with LIC of India, he would be responsible, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, is not sustainable. Being on leave without pay is clearly distinguishable from being on leave due to serious ailment. The status of health of the deceased son of the complainant was well in the knowledge of the employer but the concerned officials/authorities did not bother to ensure that the premium amount was remitted to the LIC. When substantial amount much more than the premium due has been paid to the complainant belatedly after lapse of 2 ½ years, had the authorities been alive to the fact that non-remittance of premium would entail serious consequences and would be detrimental to the interest of complainant, they ought to have remitted the premium, which was not very substantial and the same could very well be recovered from the payable dues of the deceased.

 

15.           There is also nothing on record to show that for the months, in which premium was not deducted, ever the deceased (Policy Holder) or his nominee or relatives were informed or cautioned to pay the premium amount towards Insurance Policy. No notice was issued either by the employer or the LIC to the deceased or his nominee to deposit the said premium. There were peculiar circumstances. A sports person, who was taken in job on the basis of his achievements, was suffering from cancer. In that situation, it was the duty of the Department, either to pay the premium to be deducted later on from his salary/dues in the coming period or at least, notice should have been sent to him to make the payment. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Policy lapsed due to deficiency on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties.

16.           Thus, Opposite Parties were not only deficient in not informing the deceased Life Assured/issuing notice for payment of premium whenever there was default but also dealt with the claim of the complainant highhandedly, without showing any sympathy or concern towards her as her son had died at a very young age. The Forum despite noting in Paras 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned order that Opposite Parties were responsible for not bringing contents of circular dated 8.1.2013 to the notice of deceased, not deducting the premium and remitting the same to LIC on account of which Policy lapsed and their failure in not informing the deceased policy holder regarding non-payment of premium, erred in not granting relief to the complainant of insured sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. In our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to the sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- under the death benefit alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 07.05.2014. The impugned order passed by the Forum, therefore, needs to be modified. In our opinion, amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Forum on account of deficiency in service and Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses are just and adequate.

17.           No other point was urged by the complainant (appellant in Appeal No.253 of 2015), and respective Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

18.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the complainant, bearing No.253 of 2015 is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Forum is modified to the extent that Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

(i)     to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, to the complainant, being the sum assured under the death benefit, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 07.05.2014, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be payable by Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.

(ii)    to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in rendering service, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be payable by Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.07.05.2014 till actual payment.

(iii)   to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be payable by Opposite Parties alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.07.05.2014 till actual payment.

19.           In view of acceptance of Appeal No.253 of 2015 filed by the complainant, the Appeal filed by Opposite Party No.2 – Northern Railways bearing No.262 of 2015 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

20.           Certified copy of this order be placed in Appeal No.262 of 2015.

21.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

22.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

February 12, 2016.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER