THUMBA YELLAIAH vs SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 9th August, 1995 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on appeals filed by the Opposite Party No. 3 (The Divisional Manager of L.I.C.) and the Opposite Party No. 2 (The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar) in Complaint No. 952/93 before the District Forum, Karim Nagar. Facts of the case are as follows : The Complainants are the parents of one Thumbs Srinivas, who was a Police Constable under the control of the OP No. 2. He obtained a Jeevan Mitra Policy with triple accident benefit for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the Salary Savings Scheme for a period of 25 years commencing from 26th October, 1991 and an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was payable under the said policy in case of death of the policy holder in an accident. OP No. 2 being the employer of the deceased was reported to have been authorised by the said Srinivas to deduct monthly premium and remit the same to OP No. 3-Insurance Company. But no deduction of the monthly premium was made from December, 1991. The policy holder (Srinivas) while proceeding to Nizamabad on official duty paid an amount of Rs. 1,566/- towards the arrears of premium due from December, 1991 to August, 1992 to the Sub-Inspector concerned on 28th August, 1992 for being remitted to OP No. 2. On 9th September, 1992 at 11.15 a.m., the said Srinivas died in a road accident while proceeding towards Nizamabad along with some other constables on official duty. The Complainants, being the parents of the deceased, lodged a claim for payment of the policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- which, however, did not elicit any response. Hence, the filed a complaint before the District Forum, Karimnagar claiming an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 100/- towards legal notice charges and costs agains the District Collector (O.P. No. 1), Superintendent of Police (O.P. No. 2) and Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Hanamkonda (OP No. 3).

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that OP No. 2 being the employer of the deceased failed to deduct the monthly premium from the salary and remit the same to OP No. 3 though authorised by the deceased to do so that OP No. 3 failed to inform either OP No. 2 or the policy holder about the arrears of premium amounts and that, therefore, both OP No. 2 and OP No. 3 are liable to pay the policy amount. Accordingly, it directed OP Nos. 2 and 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to me Complainants together with interest at 12% per annum from 9th September, 1992 till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500/- and dismissed the complaint against OP No. 1. This Order was appealed against by both OP Nos. 2 and 3. The State Commission relied upon the decision of the National Commission in Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India v. Haribandhu Setha and Ors. (1995) 3 CTJ 513 (CP) = 1995 (1) Consumer 297 (NS) and allowed the appeal of OP No. 3 (LIC). As for the liability of the employer, the State Commission held that there was no material to show that either OP No. 3 or the deceased informed OP No. 2 at any time that the monthly premium is to be deducted from the salary bill by OP No. 2 and remitted to OP No. 3. The very act this the deceased handed over a sum of Rs. 1,566/- representing arrears of premium for nine months from December, 1991 to August, 1992 to the Sub-Inspector for being paid over to the LIC showed that OP No. 2 was not in the picture. In the light of this, the State Commission allowed the appeal of OP No. 2 also and set aside the entire order of the District Forum.

IN the Revision Petition against this Order of State Commission filed by Complainants before us, the main contention raised is that the LIC (Respondent No. 2) has denied payment of the insurance amount only because of the default allegedly committed by the Office of the Respondent No. 1 in not carrying out its obligations under an arrangement for months deduction of premium from the salary of the deceased and remittance of the same to the LIC. We have gone through the records and heard the counsel for the parties. When the Revision Petition was taken up for bearing on 4th October, 1996, Respondent No. 1 was neither present nor represented by a counsel. We directed Respondent No. 1 to furnish all relevant information and make arrangements to be present himself in person or through counsel at the final hearing of the case. Counsel appearing for the LIC of India also undertook to file an affidavit furnishing more information in the matter. The LIC (Respondent No. 2) produced a copy of their letter to Respondent No. 1 requesting deduction of monthly premium from the salary of the deceased. When the Revision Petition came up for final hearing on 12th December, 1996, counsel for Respondent No. 1 requested for an adjournment to enable him to file counter affidavit to that filed by Respondent No. 2. In their counter affidavit, Respondent No. 1 observed, inter alia as follows : "It is the responsibility of the policy holder to pay the premia and keep the policy alive till such time the salary deductions are started by the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar. In the present instance, the salary deduction was not started due to oversight and no premia were paid from December, 1991 to September, 1992 i.e. till the death of the policy holder. There was failure on the part of the LIC in not reminding the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, when the premia were not paid for about (9) months. There was also negligence on the part of the policy holder ............... in not paying the premia correctly and keeping the policy alive till the salary deduction started".

SUBSEQUENT to the conclusion of hearing of this case, it has come to our notice that the Supreme Court of India by their Order dated 18th March, 1996 in State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, LIC and Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7092 of 1996, reported at (1996) 4 CTJ 382 (Supreme Court)(CP), have set aside the Order of the National Commission dated February 17, 1995 in F.A. No. 510/92 Divisional Manager, LIC v. Haribandhu Setha and Ors. (1995) 3 CTJ 513 (CP) = Jt. 1996 (4) SC 288). While doing so the Supreme Court of India have observed 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 purview of the Act to claim any damages against the State under the Act. Therefore, if any claim arises from the contesting respondent, it would be open to him to claim, in any other forum, but not under the Act"

The instant case is fully covered by the above decision of the Apex Court. In the light of this, the order of the State Commission is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.