NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 618 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 09.08.2011 in FA No. 1120 of 2010 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula )
Northern Railway
Jagadhari Workshop Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
Through its Senior Personal Officer ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Bimla Devi
Wife of Late Shri Lal Chand
2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
3. Sh. Aman Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
All residents of village Topra Kalan
Tehsil Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana
4. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Opposite Madhu Palace,
Jagadhari Road
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
Through its Branch Manager ... Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 619 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 09.08.2011 in FA No. 1121 of 2010 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula )
Northern Railway
Jagadhari Workshop Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
Through its Senior Personal Officer ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Bimla Devi
Wife of Late Shri Lal Chand
2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
3. Sh. Aman Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
All residents of village Topra Kalan
Tehsil Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana
4. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Opposite Madhu Palace,
Jagadhari Road
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
Through its Branch Manager ... Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 620 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 09.08.2011 in FA No. 1122 of 2010 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula )
Northern Railway
Jagadhari Workshop Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
Through its Senior Personal Officer ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Ms. Bimla Devi
Wife of Late Shri Lal Chand
2. Sh. Sanjay Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
3. Sh. Aman Kumar
Son of Late Shri Lal Chand
All residents of village Topra Kalan
Tehsil Jagadhari
District Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana
4. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Opposite Madhu Palace,
Jagadhari Road
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
Through its Branch Manager ... Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate
Pronounced on : 2nd July, 2012
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. For the reasons stated in the applications for condonation of delay, the delay in filing these revision petitions is condoned.
2. This order shall decide three cases which are between the same parties and pertain to three different insurance policies. The facts of the cases are these. The deceased, Lal Chand obtained three insurance policies bearing No. 173750059 dated 28.9.2003, No. 173509711 dated 28.1.2004 and No. 173509877 dated 15.7.2004 for Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/-, respectively. Shri Lal Chand paid the initial premiums of all the policies.
3. The deduction of the premium amount was being made from the salary of Shri Lal Chand and the same was sent to the LIC every month upto the month of September, 2005. In the month of September, 2005, Shri Lal Chand met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries on 20.1.2006. However, the deduction of the premium from the salary of the deceased from October, 2005 to January, 2006 could not be made due to the accident of the life assured because he was not getting the regular salary.
4. Legal representatives of Shri Lal Chand, Ms. Bimla Devi, Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Aman Kumar filed complaints against the petitioner-Northern Railway and LIC before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and the LIC, respondent No. 4. The District Forum allowed all the three complaints and granted Rs.50,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/- in respect of all the three insurance policies alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date after three months from the date of death of deceased till its realization. The District Forum allowed the claim against the petitioner only wherein the above mentioned reliefs were granted in all the three cases.
5. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner-Northern Railway approached the State Commission. The State Commission placed reliance on the authority reported in the case of Executive Engineer Environmental Engineering (Cons.) Division Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1(1999) CPJ 74 (NC) and modified the order of the District Forum. In revision No. 618 of 2012 and in revision No. 620 of 2012, the LIC was directed to pay Rs.40,000/- each and petitioner-Northern Railway was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- each in respect of the insurance amount to the respondent-complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till its realization. In revision No. 619 of 2012, the LIC was directed to pay Rs.75,000/- and the petitioner-Northern Railway was directed to pay Rs.25,000/- of the insurance amount to the respondent-complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order alongwith 9% per annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the Northern Railways. Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention towards the affidavit filed by Shri Janardan Singh, Deputy CMO, Jagadhri Workshop, District Yamuna Nagar. All the affidavits in respective cases are similar only dates are changed. Paras 6 and 7 in revision petition No. 618 of 2012 read:-
“6.That on receipt of information from the agent of late Sh. Lal Chand that he had taken policy no. 173750059, dated 28-09-2004 from LIC authorities and got himself insured, deduction of premium at the rate of Rs.477/- per month was started from the salary of the deceased and the same sent to the office of LIC authority upto the month of September 2005, but the deduction of the premium towards LIC from the month of October, 2005 till 20-01-2006 could not be made from the salary of deceased as he met with an accident in the month of October 2005 and was not on duty till his date of death i.e. 20-01-2006. His period of absence for the period from October 2005 to 20-01-2006 was treated as hurt on duty and no regular salary bill was prepared as he was on sick list with Railway Doctor. He was paid salary through supplementary bills on receipt of information from Railway Medical Authorities regarding his sickness. Therefore, deduction towards LIC premium from the salary of Sh. Lal Chand husband of the complainant could not be made for the period from October 2005 to 20.01.2006. Besides this the employee has submitted an undertaking (copy enclosed as Annexure R-1) to the effect that he shall be entirely responsible for any subsequences on account of non-payment of premium of his policy for reason beyond the control of Chief Works Manager, Jagadhri Workshop, such as in the event of his proceeding on leave without pay or his drawing advance salary without deduction of premium or cancelling this authorization for deduction of premium or his leaving employment. In any such case or in case of withdrawal of Salary saving scheme with Chief Works Manager, Jagadhri Workshop by Life Insurance Corporation of India for any reason whatsoever, it will be his responsibility to make arrange for remittance of premium directly to the Corporation at the increased rate specified in the policy to prevent his policy from going into lapsed condition. So, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the answering respondent.
7.That there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the answering respondent neither the complainants have suffered mental agony, physical harassment or financial loss due to the act of the answering respondent.”
7. However, the National Commission has taken a contrary view in the above said judgment. In Executive Engineer Environmental Engineering (Cons.) Division Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1(1999) CPJ 74 (NC) the following paras neatly dovetail with the facts of this case.
“5.The State Commission held that even if the employee had gone on leave and salary was not paid, it was obligatory on the part of the employer to inform the LIC of the position. The premium has not been paid in the months of May and June. One instalment was paid in the month of July by deduction from his salary. Respondent No. 2 neither deducted the premium from the salary nor did he intimate their difficulty to the LIC and also to the deceased. The deceased was under the impression that henceforth monthly instalment will be paid by the Executive Engineer under the aforesaid Scheme.
6.Negligence on the part of the LIC was also noted in sending information to the Executive Engineer but no final decision was given on the allegation of discrepancy in the record.”
8. It was the bounden duty of the Railways to deduct the premium in respect of the policies in question from the salary of deceased-Lal Chand. The negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioner itself shows deficiency in service. The view taken by the learned State Commission is in accordance with the view taken by the National Commission.
9. I find no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the State Commission. All the three revision petitions are sans merit and deserve dismissal at this stage, which I hereby direct.
………………Sd/-…..………..
(J. M. MALIK, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
Naresh/
