RAM KUMAR KAUSHIKIYA vs NAV BHARAT DAINIK SAMACHAR PATRA

BOTH these appeals one (No. 574/2004) filed by complainant and the other (No. 1272/2004) fled by one of the two opposite parties namely Nav Bharat Dainik Samachar Patra (for short "Nav Bharat") are directed against the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Bhopal in Case No. 641/2003.

THE complaint was regarding non-payment of sum assured Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants under an insurance policy obtained by opposite party No. 1, "Nav Bharat" from United India Insurance Company Ltd. O.P. No. 2 for the benefit of its subscribers providing a coverage of Rs. 50,000/- each, in case of his death by accident. One such subscriber was late Sumit Tiwari who died an accidental death on 18.9.2001 when the policy was in force. THE claim of complainants the heirs of the deceased-insured, was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that said Sumit Tiwari was not covered by the policy on the date of his death inasmuch the premium for him was received by the Insurance Company after his death. The Forum below while exonerating the United India Insurance Company Ltd. directed "Nav Bharat" to pay sum assured Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants, besides cost Rs. 1,000/-.

Both the complainants and opposite party-Nav Bharat have come in appeal. It is a common ground in both the appeals that respondent-United India Insurance Company Ltd. ought to be held liable for payment of the sum assured to the complainants. The complainants have also demanded interest on the said amount by way of compensation for delayed payment.

ALTHOUGH the order impugned was passed ex parte against Nav Bharat, however, on our direction they have filed original schedule of insurance and it is seen that this newspaper in collabortion with United India Insurance Company Ltd. had floated a promotional scheme in the name Nav Bharat Khajana 3 Crore, under which the subscribers of the said newspaper were provided insurance coverage of Rs. 50,000/- each in the event of his accidental death. For each such subscriber a premium of Rs. 5/- was paid. The policy was for a period of one year from 2.8.2001 to 1.8.2002. Initially, only 10,000 subscribers whose names appeared in table-I were covered. Subsequently, 10,000 more subscribers were added and their subscription Rs. 52,500/- was remitted to the Insurance Company. Again on 22.11.2001, 20,000 more subscribers were added and covered by the said policy and the amount of premium Rs. 1,00,000/- collected from them together with a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- total Rs. 1,05,000/- were remitted to the respondent-Insurance Company. The deceased-insured had paid his subscription to Nav Bharat on 16.9.2001. ALTHOUGH the entire amount collected from various subscribers including the deceased-insured was remitted by Nav Bharat to the Insurance Company on 28.9.2001. Evidently, it was a master policy obtained by Nav Bharat for the benefit of its subscribers and the amount of premium Rs. 5/- collected from each such subscribers from time to time was remitted to the Insurance Company. Obviously, Nav Bharat was acting as an agent of the Insurance Company in the matter of collection of premium. Surely premium of each subscriber was not to be remitted in peicemeal but it was only after collection from various subscribers that the amount in lumpsum was remitted by Nav Bharat to the Insurance Company. In the instant case the amount of premium from the deceased-insured was collected on 16.9.2001 and the certificate of insurance was also issued by Nav Bharat to him on behalf of Insurance Company. ALTHOUGH the amount so collected was remitted on 28.9.2001 i.e., after the death of the deceased-insured, but this would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the sum assured. As already pointed out newspaper Nav Bharat was acting as an agent of the Insurance Company and the certificate of insurance was also granted to the deceased by the newspaper on behalf of Insurance Company. Delayed remittance of the amount of premium would not vitiate the policy or make it non-existent. In the case of Basant Devi, AIR 2000 SC 43, the Apex Court has held that under a salary saving scheme the employer acts as an agent of the Insurance Company and the insurer cannot repudiate the claim on the ground of non-remittance of premium by the employer. In the instant case also as already pointed out Nav Bharat management was acting as an agent of or at the most a co-insurer along with the respondent-Insurance Company. Both were, therefore, jointly and severally, liable to pay the sum assured to the complainants. In fact the amount of premium though remitted a little late was accepted by the Insurance Company. The certificate of insurance was already issued on behalf of the Insurance Company by Nav Bharat to the deceased-insured. There is also no dispute about the accidental nature of death of the deceased and his nominees were, therefore, entitled to receive the sum assured under the policy. The Forum below, in our opinion, erred in exonerating the respondent-insurer from its liability to pay the sum assured. The complainants who have been deprived of their just claim also need to be compensated by awarding interest. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals and modify the impugned order to the extent indicated above. Both opposite parties i.e., Nav Bharat Dainik Samachar Patra and the United India Insurance Company Ltd. are directed to pay, jointly and severally, to the complainants namely Ram Kumar Kaushikiya and Smt. Kiran Tiwari Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint until payment. They shall also bear costs of complainants of both the Fora and the same is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-.

THIS order be retained in Appeal No. 574/2004 and a copy be placed in the record of Appeal No. 1272/2004. Appeals allowed.