SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING—Appellant
versus
BASANTI DEVI & ANR.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6113 of 1995—Decided on 28.9.1999
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - INSURANCE - SALARY SAVINGS SCHEME - LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER - AGENCY - IMPLIED AUTHORITY - PAYMENT OF PREMIUM - LAPSE OF POLICY - CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION - JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 142 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - POWER TO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE - ORDER 41, RULE 33 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - POWER OF APPELLATE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Bhim Singh, an employee of DESU, took an insurance policy with LIC under the Salary Savings Scheme. DESU deducted the premium from Bhim Singh's salary but failed to remit it to LIC. Bhim Singh died, and his widow, Basanti Devi, filed a complaint with the State Commission against LIC and DESU. The State Commission directed DESU to pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest to Basanti Devi. On appeal, the National Commission affirmed the order of the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that DESU was an agent of LIC for the purpose of collecting premium from Bhim Singh. DESU had implied authority to collect premium on behalf of LIC. Bhim Singh had paid the premium, and it was the fault of DESU in not remitting the premium in time. LIC was wrongly discharged of its liability under the insurance policy. Basanti Devi was entitled to the insurance amount.
Issues: 1. Whether DESU was an agent of LIC for the purpose of collecting premium from Bhim Singh? 2. Whether Bhim Singh had paid the premium? 3. Whether LIC was liable under the insurance policy? 4. Whether Basanti Devi was entitled to the insurance amount?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. DESU was an agent of LIC for the purpose of collecting premium from Bhim Singh. DESU had implied authority to collect premium on behalf of LIC. Bhim Singh had paid the premium, and it was the fault of DESU in not remitting the premium in time. LIC was wrongly discharged of its liability under the insurance policy. Basanti Devi was entitled to the insurance amount. 2. The court relied on the following principles: * An agent is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent other in dealings with third person and the person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the principal. * No consideration is necessary to create an agency. * Payment of premium by an agent on behalf of the principal is valid payment. * An agent has implied authority to do all acts necessary or proper to carry out the purpose of the agency. * An agent has ostensible authority to do all acts which the principal represents the agent as having authority to do. * A principal is liable for the acts of its agent done within the scope of the agent's authority.
Final Decision: The court directed LIC to pay Basanti Devi the insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from December 17,1992 till payment. DESU was directed to pay the cost of the proceedings, which was quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.
D.P. Wadhwa, J.—On a complaint filed by Basanti Devi, widow of Bhim Singh, under Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for short) the State Commission by its judgment dated November 10,1993 directed the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from December 17,1992 to the complainant till the date of payment. Life Insurance Corporation (‘LIC for short), the insurer was, however, absolved of any liability. By the impugned judgment dated January 13,1995 by majority (2 : 1) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘National Commission’ for short), on appeal, affirmed the order of the State Commission. DESU is the constituent of Delhi Municipal Corporation, a body corporate under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Both the National Commission and the State Commission are constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. LIC floated a “Salary Savings Scheme” under which Bhim Singh, an employee of DESU took an insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with the LIC. Insurance policy was to commence on January 28,1992. Bhim Singh had paid Rs. 636/- as premium for two months to the LIC. Premium for the third month was payable by March 29, 1992. The amount of the premium was deducted by the DESU from the salary of Bhim Singh and remitted by it to the LIC. It appears that premium for the subsequent months was deducted by DESU from the salary of Bhim Singh but was not remitted to LIC. In the meantime Bhim Singh died on August 17, 1992. Bansati Devi, widow of Bhim Singh informed LIC of the death of her husband and requested for payment of the amount due under the policy. LIC disclaimed any liability for payment under the policy as the instalments of premium after June, 1992 were not received by it. LIC, therefore, repudiated claim of Basanti Devi. LIC said that since default had been committed in payment of premium the policy taken out by Bhim Singh lapsed. This led Basanti Devi to file a complaint before the State Commission against LIC and DESU with the result as aforesaid.
3. Before we consider the rival contentions it would be appropriate to understand the “Salary Savings Scheme” of LIC. During the course of arguments we were given a brochure on the Scheme. It is addressed to the employer telling it the advantages of the Scheme. This is how the Scheme has been explained :
“It is a simple, economical plan whereby your employees may obtain life insurance protection for their families and retirement income for themselves under advantageous conditions which might not be available to them otherwise. This is accomplished by savings automatically deducted from their pay and remitted to us once a month.
This is not a group insurance. Each employee owns his policy individually, is entitled to all its benefits and can continue the policy in the event of any change in employment.
Under this plan, you as an employer give facilities to the representatives of the LIC to contact your employees to offer life insurance cover to them. Premium amounts, if an employee agrees to insure under this plan, are to be deducted every month from the employee’s salary, in the same manner as the employee’s provident fund. All the amounts so collected are paid to the Corporation by one cheque by the employer. This ensures, for the employee regular payment, monthly, of his premiums at concessional rates. Deduction of premium from the salary or wages of an employee and its remittance to the Life Insurance Corporation is so beneficial that the recently amended Payment of Wages Act and the Minimum Wages Act make it legally permissible for an employer to do so. On your part, all that the plan involves is a little extra accounting which you will surely consider worthwhile because of the...”
The scheme then lists the advantages both for the employer and the employee. A specimen of the letter addressed by the Branch Manager, LIC to the employer is as under :
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.