LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAAppella vs LALITABEN

PRESIDENTTHIS appeal arises from order dated 5.8.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 759 of 1994 directing both the opponents including opponent No. 2 Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC for short), now appellant, to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- under Policy No. 830302585 and Rs. 25,000/- under Policy No. 830279432 with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of death of insured Kishoresingh Rajput till payment and compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the head of mental agony and hardship and cost quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.

WE have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellant LIC and original complainant. No one else has remained present before us. WE have gone through the impugned order. No appeal has been filed by the original opponent No. 1 S.L.M. Maneklal Industries Limited, employer of the insured. It is not in dispute that the insurance in question was under Salary Saving Scheme. It is also not in dispute that the premium was deducted from the salary of the deceased insured. What has been disputed by the opponent LIC of India is that on account of default on the part of the employer, either in deducting the premium or in remitting the deducted premium at the relevant point of time, the policy in question stood in lapsed condition. In our considered opinion decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) v. Basanti Devi & Ors., reported in III (1999) CPJ 15 (SC)=VIII (1999) SLT 279=(1999) 8 SCC 229, will squarely apply to the present case.

It has been submitted on behalf of the opponent LIC of India that Special Leave Petition No. 6831/2002 between LIC of India v. Rajeev Bhaskar, and S.L.P. No. 18056/2002 between LIC of India v. Smt. Mulema Singh, are pending before a larger Bench of the Apex Court. In our considered opinion pendency of both these SLPs will not have any effect on the merits of the present case. This appeal cannot indefinitely wait particularly bearing in mind the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regard to speedy disposal of the matters.

INSOFAR as merits are concerned, the decision of the Apex Court referred to above in DESUs case will squarely apply to the present case. However, the complainant would not be entitled to compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship and interest at the rate of 15% in view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly with regard to non-receipt of premium by the opponent LIC of India. We propose to award interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum v. The New India Assurance Company Limited, I (2000) SLT 300=I (2001) ACC 151 (SC)=2001 (1) Supreme Today 5, insofar as present appellant is concerned. Following order is, therefore, passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 5.8.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 759 of 1994 is hereby modified only vis-a-vis the present appellant by altering the rate of interest from 15% to 9% and by setting aside the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost. The rights and obligations of the two opponents, namely SLM Maneklal Industries Limited and LIC of India inter se will not stand affected by this order and they are left in tact on their own merits. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant LIC shall be verified and paid over by Account Payee cheque to the original complainant in terms of the aforesaid order. If there is any balance left out, it should be returned to the LIC. In case there is balance still payable, it will be paid by the appellant LIC within six weeks from today. Appeal partly allowed.