Life Insurance Corporation of India vs RAMESH JAIN

PETITIONER was the opposite before the District Forum on a complaint filed by the complainant-respondent who is brother of the assured P.K. Jain. Complainant had filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Insurance Company. Complaint was that brother of the complainant P.K. Jain had taken life insurance policy for Rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner and though he was declared as having died in view of the presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act yet the policy was not paid and was repudiated by the petitioner.

P.K. Jain, the assured had taken a life insurance policy for Rs. 10,000/- on 23.3.1965. Last premium which he paid on the policy was on 28.3.1973 and next premium was due to be paid on 28th March, 1974. P.K. Jain left the house on 12.2.1973 and was not heard thereafter. A report was lodged with the police on 3.10.1973 when the complainant informed about the disappearance of the assured on 25.8.1988. Thereafter a suit was filed by the complainant in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhatinda against the petitioner which was decreed in favour of the complainant and against the petitioner. This was on the basis of presumption as contained in Section 108 of the Evidence Act as aforesaid. Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act we reproduce as under : "107. Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years-When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. 108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years-Provided that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it."

On repudiation of the claim by the petitioner, complainant moved the District Forum which by its order dated 18.10.1996 allowed the same and directed that the petitioner shall pay the amount of the policy and bonus and other dues to the legal heirs of the assured. Against this order petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which modified the order of the District Forum and instead directed that the petitioner to pay the paid up value of the policy along with bonus etc. as was payable on March 28, 1974. It was also directed that the petitioner would pay interest @ 18% per annum till payment. Further direction was that if the amount as awarded by the District Forum had already been paid that would be adjusted and the excess amount, if any, paid petitioner will be entitled to recover it. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission as well petitioner has filed this petition.

It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since premium was not paid which was due on March, 1974 the policy lapsed and since it was not revived within six months, five years of lapsing of the policy could not have revived, no amount was payable to the complainant. State Commission referred to the provisions of the Evidence Act and then quoted as under : "Last premium was paid on March 28, 1973 and the next premium was due to be paid on March 28, 1974. No doubt, P.K. Jain is stated to have left his house on February 12, 1973 when the policy was in force as last premium was paid on March 28, 1973. The policy lapsed for non payment of premium of March, 1974. Since no presumption of any particular date of death can be raised, it cannot be held that on the date P.K. Jain left his house, he died or in other words, it cannot be held that he died before March 28, 1973. In such circumstances, only paid up value of the insurance policy with bonus as due on March 28, 1974, the day the policy lapsed was payable to the legal heirs of P.K. Jain.

IN coming to this conclusion, State Commission relied on two decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Surjit Kaur v. Jhujhar Singh, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 274 and Har Nand v. The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. & Ors., AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 14. IN both these decisions it was held that only a presumption of death could be raised and not with respect to any particular date of death in the case of a person not heard of for period of 7 years. State Commission was bound by the law laid by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, its jurisdictional High Court. We do not find any error in the reasoning of the State Commission for us to take a different view. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.