Union of India vs RAJESHWAR TIWARY

APPELLANT-O.P. has preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.11.2002 passed by District Forum, Saran in Complaint Case No. 72/1996 directing the appellant Nos. 1 to 5 to pay Rs. 9,204/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 1.1.1990 and also allowed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony. The District Forum further directed that out of the above amount Rs. 2,829.75 which has been paid to the complainant on 19.1.2000, i.e., during the pendency of the case be adjusted.

THE brief fact of the case is that complainant-respondent was working in the Divisional Accounts Office, N.E. Railway, Samastipur. He obtained a postal life insurance policy of Rs. 5,000/- under salary saving scheme in the month of February, 1968 at the monthly premium of Rs. 19.25 to be deducted from his salary by the Railway Administration and was to be sent to respondent No. 3 (Post Master General, Postal Life Insurance, Patna). THE premium was regularly deducted from his monthly salary and was sent to respondent No. 3 till March, 1971. After March, 1971 the deducted premiums were not sent to respondent No. 3 by the Divisional Accounts Officer, N.E. Railways, Samastipur. THE complainant was transferred to the office of appellant No. 4 (Divisional Rail Manager, N.E. Railway, Sonpur). In this office also there was regular deduction from his salary towards the payment of premium but from this office also the premiums were not sent to respondent No. 3. From enquiry the complainant learnt that the amount deducted from his salary from April, 1971 to January, 1989 to the tune of Rs. 4,129.25 was wrongly sent to respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, L.I.C., Muzaffarpur) instead of respondent No. 3. This resulted into the lapse of the policy of the respondent, as such, the maturity amount of the policy to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- could not be paid to him by respondent No. 3. The complainant approached all the concerned officials but to no help and thereafter he filed the complaint case and claimed Rs. 20,000/- against the maturity amount of Rs. 5,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum thereupon and also claimed mental and physical agony totalling Rs. 81,000/-. After hearing the parties the District Forum passed the impugned order.

The main contention of the appellant is that respondent No. 2 (Divisional Manager, L.I.C., Muzaffarpur) should not have withheld the premium amount right from April, 1971 to January, 1989 sent to him by the appellants by mistake. This amount should have been sent to the office of the respondent No. 3. This fact has been admitted by the respondent No. 2 that by mistake the amount was not sent to respondent No. 3, then in that case the District Forum should have held respondent No. 2 liable for the deficiency in the service and not the other appellants. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that during the pendency of the case before the District Forum, respondent No. 2 has already paid Rs. 2,829.75 of the premium amount from November, 1976 to January, 1989. It was further submitted that when the District Forum has allowed interest @ 9% per annum there was no occasion to award excessive compensation of Rs. 5,000/- against the appellant.

IN view of the admitted facts of the parties as mentioned above there is very little scope for dispute in this appeal before us. The main point for decision is who is responsible for the payment of the admitted amount of the complainant out of the respondents-O.Ps. named in the complaint petition. The contention of the L.I.C. (respondent No. 2) that the policy of the complainant has lapsed for non-payment of the premium is in accordance with the rules of the L.I.C. As such there is substance in the contention of the L.I.C. that it is not liable to pay for this amount of the policy. The respondent No. 3-O.P. No. 6 has stated that there was no contract between him and the complainant with regard to the policy bond and as such he is not entitled to pay any amount to the complainant. There is substance in this contention also which has been rightly accepted by the District Forum. Respondent No. 2 has produced copy of the ledger to show that premium for the period May, 1968 to July, 1968; June, 1969 to January, 1970, and April, 1970 to April, 1971 and of January, 1989 have not been deposited in his office. This point is not in dispute. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished on behalf of respondent No. 2 as to why the premium deducted from the salary of the complainant was not sent to respondent No. 1 when it has informed respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that premium of the complainant is not being received. The District Forum on the basis of these facts has held that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were responsible for not sending the deducted amount for the policy of the complainant to respondent No. 3 and it amounts to deficiency in their service.

IT is settled law that when a person was insured under salary saving scheme from L.I.C., and employer failed to deduct the premium from the salary of the employees due to which the policy lapsed, the fault is not on the part of the insurance, and the complainant is entitled to claim the insurance amount from the employer I (2000) CPJ 50 (NC) National Commission] relied upon. The District Forum has also discussed this judgment in his impugned order. In view of these discussions we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the District Forum is in accordance with the fact and law and it does not require our interference. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 9,204.00 minus Rs. 2,829.75 = Rs. 6,374.25 and on this amount he is further entitled for an interest @ 9% from 1.1.1990 till the date of payement. However, we are in agreement with this contention of the appellant that he should not be punished twice and award of interest has already been allowed, therefore, the award of compensation should not have been allowed. We setaside this part of the order (award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-).

IN the fact and cirucumstances, the appeal is allowed in part. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal partly allowed.