Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

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 A.Venkat Satyanarayan was employee under OP No.2. It is alleged inter alia that said A.Venkat Satyanarayan has  obtained two LIC policies bearing Nos. 572465967 and 573196079  for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. During life time of the policy holder, he agreed for deduction of premium from his salary by OP No.2 and as such the case was covered under Salary Saving Scheme. The two policies commenced on 16.3.2010 and 5.12.2008 respectively. Unfortunately, the policy holder died on 13.12.2010. Complainant being nominee made claim before OP No.1 but the latter repudiated the claim stating that the premiums were not paid regularly. So, being aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 being noticed filed written version stating that the policies were purchased by the complainant under Salary Saving Scheme but they submitted that the complainant did not pay the premiums through his employer regularly for which the policies were lapsed. As such, they are unable to pay the sum assured even if the policy holder died on 13.12.2010. As the premiums were not paid for complete three years, it is not possible to pay the paid up value. Therefore, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

5.      OP No.2 filed written version admitting the complainant as his employee. It is also stated that the complainant has authorized OP No.2 to deduct the premium from his salary and to remit the same to the LICI.  Since the complainant was continuously absent from duty his salary could not be drawn for which the deduction of premium and remittance of the same to the LICI could not be possible. Therefore, OP No.2 has no any deficiency in service on their part.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In the result, in view of the above discussion, deliberation and decisions  as referred above  and under the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, we find that OP No.2 i.e. IRE is negligent and deficient in service for non-depositing the premiums against the insured’s two policies under Salary Saving Scheme for the month of September 2010 to December 2010 and at the same  time the OP No.1 LIC is also equally deficient in service for non intimating to the employee for non-deductions of the premiums for three months by the employer. For the suffering which the complainant had to undergo for default committed by IRE in not remitting the premiums to the LIC, we direct the OP No.2 i.e. IRE Ltd to deposit the default premiums in the office of OP No.1 pertaining to aforesaid two policies along with interest if any as claimed by LIC. The OP No.2 shall be liable  to deposit the amount towards default premiums within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Simultaneously, we also direct the OP No.1 i.e. LIC to pay the sum assured under aforesaid two policies i.e. under Policy No.572465957 a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand only) and policy No.573196079  an amount of  Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant. The aforesaid total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate 6% per annum till the amount is paid to the nominee complainant failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, in this case since the complainant has not prayed for any compensation, cost or interest, we are therefore, not inclined to pass any orders in this regard. The case of the complainant stood disposed off accordingly.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that  in the facts and circumstances of the case, the policy holder has taken  up responsibility of payment of premium in the event the employer did not remit the premium from his salary to deposit the same with the OP. Learned District Forum has committed error in law by not understanding the fact properly. He also emphasized that since the responsibility of the policy holder is to pay the premium, for non-payment of same liabilities is to be fixed up with the policy holder. He also distinguished the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking vrs. Basanti Devi and another AIR 2000 Supreme Court 43 and submitted that it is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

9.      It is admitted fact that A.Venkata Satyanarayan  was employee of OP No.2. It is also not in dispute that policy holder purchased two policies and the premium was payable under Salary Saving Scheme. On the other hand, the premium is to be deducted from the salary by OP No.2 and to be remitted to OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that up to August, 2010, the premium was paid but thereafter, the premium was not paid till the death of the policy holder.

10.    The only plea taken by the OP No.1 is that the policy holder held all responsibility for consequent non-payment of premium by writing a letter to OP No.2. Such letter has been discussed by the learned District Forum. The letter of authorization is there. We have gone through the same. It is clearly mentioned that due to continuous absent from duty  when his salary could not be drawn or it is beyond the control of the employer  to remit the premium to the LIC, the responsibility of employer is ceased. But in the instant case, the policy holder has gone on leave being admitted to the hospital at the instance of OP No.2. This is not the case where the policy holder owns his responsibility for any consequence for non-payment of premium. On the other hand, the deciosn of DESU v. Basanati Devi (Supra) clearly shows that under the Salary Saving Scheme it is the responsibility of the employer to deduct the premium and remit the same to the LIC unless the policy holder owns responsibility for payment of premium directly. We have verified the DFR and found that the learned District Forum analyzed the case meticulously and rightly arrived at correct decision, we find no merit on the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and as such, we hereby confirmed the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. The appellant is directed to comply the order of the learned District Forum within 45 days from today failing which it will carry interest @12% per annum form the date of impugned order till date of payment.

           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.