SINGARENI COLLERIES CO. LTD. vs J. VIJAYA

THE Collery Manager, Goleti-II-Incline, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Goleti Village, Rebbena Mandal of Adilabad District, the 3rd opposite party and the General Manager, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Bellampally of Adilabad District, the 4th opposite party have preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 19.2.1998 passed by the Adilabad District Forum in O.P. No. 178/1997, directing them to pay to the complainant the double accident benefit payable under Policy No. 682851593 obtained by the complainant''s husband with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the death of the husband of the complainant till the date of realisation within a period of one month apart from directing the Life Insurance Corporation of India officers, opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant the double accident benefits due under policies bearing Nos. 680279465, 680464862 and 680835577 together with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of death of the husband of the complainant.

THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that her husband Jakkapalli Laxman, who was working as a Coal Filler in Goleti-II-Incline of Singareni Colleries Company took four policies; one for Rs. 15,000/- another for Rs. 25,000/- and another for Rs. 25/000/- and the fourth policy for Rs. 1,20,000/-, that her husband was paying the premium amounts regularly for the said policies that her husband Laxman was killed by S. Mogili and B. Rajam near Pedda Buda Village to Tallagjrijala Mandal on 12.8.1996 that she being the nominee under the said four policies is entitled to the amounts payable under those policies, that when she claimed the amounts, the Life Insurance Corporation paid only basic amounts on the first three policies i.e. for Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and another for Rs. 25,000/- and declined to pay tile accident benefits under the said policies and only offered to pay ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,18,794/- under the fourth policy issued in favour of her husband for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and that she is entitled to accident benefits under the first three policies and also the double accident benefit under the fourth policy with all incidental benefits. She, therefore, approached the Adilabad District Forum with the complaint i.e. O.P. No. 178/1997 requesting for appropriate reliefs. The opposite parties 1 and 2 being the Life Insurance Corporation officials contended by filing a version that because there is no proof that the husband of the complainant died in an accident, the basic amounts alone were paid under the first three policies that because the fourth policy namely policy bearing No. 682851593 was in a lapsed condition, the Corporation took a lenient view and decided to pay ex-gratia amount of Rs. 1,18,794/- under the said policy and there is no deficiency of service on their part. The opposite parties 3 and 4 who are the appellants herein did not file any counter and did not contest the matter before the District Forum.

The complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-10 and the opposite parties filed Ex. B1, xerox copy of the fourth policy No. 682851593. No other evidence was adduced by either party.

AFTER considering the material on record the District Forum observed that the appellants being the employers of the complainant''s husband failed to deduct the monthly premium for the month of June, 1996 and remit the same to the Life Insurance Corporation and because of the negligence of the appellants the fourth policy of the complainant''s husband had lapsed and therefore the appellants are also liable to pay the amounts due under the policies. With regard to the liability of the opposite parties 1 and 2 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation officials, the District Forum held that because there is evidence to show that the complainant''s husband was murdered, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay the double accident benefits under the first three policies to the complainant and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the said double accident benefit under the first three policies and also to pay ex-gratia amount of Rs. l,18,794/- to the complainant as they have agreed to pay the said amount under the fourth policy though it was in a lapsed condition. As this appeal is preferred by opposite parties 3 and 4, we are not concerned with the directions made by the District Forum against opposite parties 1 and 2. It is contended for the appellants that the service rendered by the appellants being employers of the husband of the complainant in the matter of making deductions from the salary of the complainant''s husband towards LIC premiums is a service rendered free of charge and no consideration was paid for the same and that in the circumstances the appellants are not liable to pay the policy amounts even if the policy was in a lapsed condition by reason of their failure to deduct monthly premium from the salaries of the complainant''s husband. It is also contended for the appellants that the service rendered by the appellants in the mater of making deductions from the salaries of the complainant''s husband is under a contract of personal service and therefore, they are not liable to pay the policy amount as the service rendered under the contract of personal service is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for short). The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation and Another, II (1996) CPJ 31 (SC)=(1996) 8 SCC 655, wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India that the services rendered free of charge and under a contract of personal service are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and the services rendered under the contract of personal service includes one between Government and its employee and the Government servant is not entitled to claim any damages against the State under the Act for the free service rendered by the Government to its employees. He has also relied upon another decision of the National Commission in General Manager, Hotel Kanishka v. Saroj Attal & Anr., wherein the National Commission has held that the employer is not liable for non-payment of the monthly premiums of the deceased employee to the Life Insurance Corporation. It has further held that the services rendered by the Government Officers in the matter of deducting premium amounts from the salary of the employees is a free service and is not attracted by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no liability on the Government in case of failure to make monthly deductions from the salaries of its employees towards the L.I.C. premiums. Keeping in view the above rulings, we hold that the District Forum is not right in holding that the appellants being the employers of the complainant''s husband are liable to pay the policy amounts and that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside but without costs. Appeal allowed.