AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED by the order in C.D. No. 553/1998 dated 29.9.1999 made by the District Forum, Nellore, the opposite party filed this appeal. This fact lie in a narrow compass. The respondent/complainant took out a joint life insurance policy No. 45972783 on 20.3.1984 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme. Both himself and his wife were Lecturers in V.R. College, Nellore at that time. The complainant had given authorisation on the same day to the Principal of the College to enable him to deduct a premium of Rs. 330.60 Ps. from his salary. The premiums were received regularly upto June, 1993. Thereafter there was default continuously.
IT may be mentioned that the complainant availed of first loan facility of Rs. 4,600/- on 12.11.1987 and subsequently another loan facility on 24.2.1990 for a sum of Rs. 15,900/-. Of course the policy was pledged before the appellant as it appears that the loan was sanctioned against the security of the policy. There is option to the complainant either to pay interest on the loan during the term of the policy or to recover the policy amount after duly deducting loan amount on maturity. IT is the case of the complainant that as the original policy was pledged with the appellant he had forgotten about the maturity date also. While so he received a letter dated 13.9.1998 from the appellant informing him that he did not pay the premium from June, 1993 and as such the paid-up value of the policy comes to Rs. 17,630/- after deducting the loan amount with overdue interest. It is here the complainant objects that he is not liable to pay overdue interest as the appellant failed to inform his employer from June, 1993 about the non-payment of the premium amount. Hence he approached the District Forum stating that there was no negligence on his part and as such the appellant is liable to pay the entire policy amount with bonus after deducting loan amount of Rs. 15,900/-.
In the counter filed by the appellant it is stated that the complainant had given authorisation letter to his employer to deduct the premiums from his salary. As per the terms of the policy it was not obligatory on the part of the appellant to inform the employer. It was only till May, 1993 premiums were paid regularly and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.
WE have to see the rights and obligations of each of the parties in this dispute. It is seen that the complainant has taken a joint life policy on 20.3.1984 and gave a letter of authorisation of even date to his principal stating as follows : "I agree that your liability will be confined to make arrangements for deductions of premiums from my salary wherever this can be made and remitting the amount to the Corporation in time. I shall be entirely responsible for any consequences on account of non-payment of premiums on my policy for reasons beyond your control."
This letter shows that he himself shall be responsible for any of the consequences that may arise on account of non-payment of premiums on his policy for reasons beyond the control of the Principal. It is also not denied that the complainant himself became Principal in 1992. So the responsibility about which the complainant is making much ado rests on him. It is also admitted that he paid premiums till May, 1993; even after he became Principal of the College. But thereafter he stopped deducting premium from the salary or remitting the same to the policy. It is denied that he has obtained loan twice from the appellant by pledging the policy. The complainant filed Exs. A-1 and A-2, while the appellant filed Exs. B-1 to B-9.
ON the basis of the available material on record the District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to inform the complainant about the non-payment of the instalments to claim the sum assured; of course after deducting the loan amount of Rs. 15,900/-. It is this order that is questioned by the appellant. As already seen the complainant has accepted the responsibility for the consequences of non-payment of premiums by the Principal of the College for the reasons beyond his control. In this case there is no other Principal except himself from 1992 onwards. As the default occurred from May, 1993 onwards he is squarely responsible. As the default has occurred not in the hands of anybody as Principal but he is solely responsible. As such he cannot complain for his own fault or latches. The District Forum has rightly relied on the decisions of the National Commission as well as the State Commission. In State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, LIC, II (1996) CPJ 31 (SC)=AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2519 - para 7 page 2520, the Supreme Court held as follows : "It is not in dispute that the respondent was a government servant and, therefore, he is bound by the service conditions and the State was rendering services free of charge to the contesting respondent. Under those circumstances, the government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Act to claim any damages against the State under the Act. Therefore, if any claim arises for the contesting respondent, it would be open to him to claim, in any other Forum, but not under the Act. If the claim is barred by limitation, time taken during the entire proceedings shall stand excluded."
In view of this no doubt the government as employer may not be bound since service of collecting the premium is being rendered free of charge and as such no compensation can be claimed against the government. But in this case the employer is not the government. Principal of the College is authorised to collect the premium, but the complainant after becoming Principal stopped collecting the premium which is purely his own fault. If the contention of the complainant is accepted it would be putting the premium for his own wrong. Nobody can be rewarded for his own faults. "Nemo ex proprio dolo consequitur actionem" - No one acquires a right of action from his own wrong. Therefore, the complainant in the circumstances of the case cannot claim any compensation and in view of his default in payment of instalments regularly there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. In this view of the matter the order under appeal is set aside and the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No costs. Appeal allowed.