(Delivered on 31/08/2016)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member.

1.         The instant appeal is against  the order of the  District Forum, Akola  passed in  complaint No. 281/2004 dated 01/04/2005 granting the complaint  and  directing  the opposite party(in short O.P.) to  pay  the remaining   policy  claim  of the  deceased  life assured (DLA) Prakash Tulshiram Bhavane to  his  legal heirs after deducting  the pending  premium amount  from it. Also  to pay the interest upon the payable  amount  from  01/11/2003 at the rate of 9% p.a. in the span of one month from the date of the receipt of the order. Also provide a cost of Rs. 1000/- to complainant.

2.         The complainant’s legal heirs  Nos. 1 to 4 through  father  of the deceased life assured(DLA)  Prakash Tulshiram Bhavane filed complaint  in the Forum that  the O.P. No. 1- Post Master, Post Office ,Zodga, Distt. Akola and O.P.No.2-The Post Master General, which  repudiated  the  policy claim  of DLA on the ground that  the DLA  did not regularly  pay the premium of Rs. 330/-  of the policy of Rs. 100000/- taken from the O.P.No.1 on 15/03/2003. They had filed  the claim  after the death of the DLA on 23/10/2003. The complainant prayed  to accept  the complaint and direct the O.P. to provide the policy claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- with  interest at the rate of 24% from date of the complaint . Also provide  Rs. 25,000/- for physical  and mental harassment  and Rs. 20,000/- for deficiency in service. Also pay Rs. 4000/- for cost of complaint

3.         On notice  the O.P. appeared  and   countered the complaint stating that the DLA took the policy on 15/03/2003 and paid  only one  premium but did not pay  any premium from April-2003 to October-2003. Hence, the policy was lapsed. Therefore, the repudiation was correct and thus  requested to   dismiss the complaint.

4.         The learned Forum considered the contentions of both parties and held that  the  DLA took the  policy  in March-2003. However,  the policy   document was sent to the DLA by the O.P. on 30/09/2003. It was informed  to him  that  he can pay the  premium of the policy from April to October till November 2003. The learned Forum held that  thus the policy itself  was given to him  in the months of  September to November-2003 and he was  permitted to  pay the pending premium till  November 2003. Hence,  the  policy was  active  when  the DLA  died on 23/10/2003. The learned Forum therefore held that when the DLA did not know the policy number as the policy was not given to him for six months and when it was  possible for him to  pay the premium till November, he could have paid the pending premium till November. Hence,  no lacuna on the part of the  DLA. Therefore, the learned Forum held the policy operative and passed the order as above.

5.         Aggrieved against the order the O.ps. filed the present appeal & hence, are referred as appellants. Advocate Mr. Shekhani  holding for  Advocate  Mr. Agrawal  appeared for the appellant . Advocate Mr. Thanvi appeared  on behalf of respondents, the original complainants. .

6.         The advocate for the appellant submitted the same contentions  as were submitted before the learned Forum stating that the  DLA, after taking the policy did not  pay any premium. Hence, the policy was void . As  per rule 39 (1) of  the lapsing policy  the policy holder can revive the policy by paying  all the arrears within six months from the unpaid  premium month  and on his application  the  O.P. No. 2 could revive the policy.  Hence,  the DLA  could have  revived the policy  but when  no such premium arrears were paid  and the  policy was  revived  as per note I,  no claim  for payment  of policy  can be  entertained.. After the  death of the DLA the father , mother and two sisters  filed the claim but did not  submit the succession certificate of the DLA  who had died  with his  nominee wife also.  Hence,  the appellant  had repudiated the claim. The learned Forum never  made a entry that  the appellant  committed  a deficiency in service but  granted the claim calling  the  DLA and the  respondent family members to be the  illiterate villangers. He therefore, submitted that as per the rule referred,  in the absence of paying the premium,  the  decision  to treat the policy as void is correct. No deficiency in  denying  the claim. Therefore,  the  erroneous order  may please  be set aside.

7.         The advocate for the respondent  submitted that  after the  submission of  first premium  the policy itself was given  to the DLA  on 30/09/2003. In between  the  DLA  had tried  to pay the premiums but officers of  appellants  advice to pay it after the receipt of the policy number and policy. Hence, the DLA  was not  in default to pay the policy premium. Therefore,  the decision given by the learned Forum is appropriate  and needs to be confirmed.

8.         We considered the contentions of both the parties. We find that  the policy itself  after the payment of first premium in April-2003 was given  in  September-2003 with  permission to pay the premium till November. It indicates that the DLA  may not have  the  number of the  policy to pay the premium.  However, he died in the month of October in sudden accident.  The appellant  had given  a choice to pay the premiums till  November. Hence, it will have to be presumed that  the policy  was active or  would have remained active till November-2003. Also the DLA  might have paid the  arrears of premium  had he   been  living . Under this circumstances  we hold that  the policy  remains active. The claim of the policy needs to be given to the  legal heirs of the  DLA. The Forum order therefore needs to be confirmed.

            Hence, the order.

ORDER

i.          The  appeal is dismissed. .

ii.          Impugned order is confirmed.

iii.         Stay if any, stands vacated.

iv.        Parties to bear their own cost.

v.         Copy of the order be  given to both the parties, free of cost.