Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case  of  complainant, in nutshell  is that the  complainant being an employee under the OP No.2 has purchased  a policy  from OP No.1 under Salary Savings Scheme commencing from 27.9.1979.  It is alleged that complainant has  10 years policy  with condition to pay monthly premium of Rs.106.60 paise which is deducted from his salary and paid to OP No.1.  It is alleged inter-alia that OP No.2 deposited 30 installments but thereafter  the employer although deducted from complainant’s salary but did not deposit same  with OP No.1  for which the policy was lapsed.  After the policy matured on 27.9.1988, the complainant did not get the maturity amount. So,  the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP No.1  filed written version stating that the policy infact commenced on 27.9.1979 but the premium was deposited for 28 months. He admitted that it was salary deducted scheme and the complainant  decided to give direct payment. Since, no premium  was received for three years  the policy did  not continue and lapsed. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

5.            OP No.2  filed the written version stating that the premium was deposited for 28 months  not 30 months and thereafter no further deduction was made.  They have no deficiency in service on their part.

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

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

                 “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the OP No.1 is directed to refund the deposited amount of 30 instalments alongwith interest @ 12 % per annum from 27.10.88 till payment with cost of Rs.200/-. “

7.           Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the  written version of the OP with proper perspectives. He submitted that as per policy condition no amount of premium would be refunded unless the premium amount has been received continuously for three years. But learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind  about condition of policy. There is no any ground mentioned by the learned District Forum for not considering  such condition of the policy. When the complainant is not entitled to  any refund, the impugned order is illegal and improper.  So, he  submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.             Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,    perused the DFR and  impugned order.

9.               It is admitted fact that the complainant being employee  of  OP No.2 had purchased a policy from OP No.1 commencing from 27.9.1979 under salary savings scheme.  Also it is not in dispute that if the premium is not paid for three years then the premium deposit will not be refundable. The complainant is to prove its case. It is only stated by the complainant that his employer has deposited 30 installments but thereafter the employer continued to deduct the premium but did not send  it to OP No.1. There is no  other evidence adduced  by the complainant to show that OP No.2 has deposited more than 30  installments with OP No.1. It is the duty of the complainant to pay all  premiums. But OP No.1 admitted to has received the premium amount for 28 months. OP No.2 have admitted   to have deposited 20 installments. None of the parties filed evidence in this regard.  The complainant has not produced any  evidence that beyond  30 instalments the employer   continued the payment of premium by deducting same from the salary of the complainant and sent it same to the OP No.1. In this regard, learned District Forum has not accepted the case of OP  with the observation that the plea of the OP is not correct. But there is nothing available on the record to show that the complainant has paid the premium continuously. Thus, we are of the view that  complainant has not proved the payment of premium continuously for  three years  so  as to get the benefit of refund of premium already paid.  Once the payment  has not been made beyond 3 years no money paid  would be   available to the complainant. In the instant case  the policy started with OP No.1 on 27.9.1979 but the premium  deposited for 28 months. Learned District Forum has passed the order to return the amount deposited.  Hence, we are of the opinion that  OP No.1  having not received the entire 36 months premium  not liable to pay back any money. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and improper and liable to set-aside it is set-aside. Appeal stands allowed. However, on the humanitarian point of view, OP No.1 will consider the case of the complainant by returning  the premium amount without any interest thereon  on the approach made by the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order. No cost        

                 Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                   DFR be sent back forthwith.