The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of vicarious liability, where the actions of the agents were imputed to the first opponent, making it liable for their omissions.

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—This appeal arises from order dated 27th September, 2004 rendered by the learned Kheda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Nadiad in Complaint No. 284 of 2003 directing the original opponent No. 1 Gujarat State Gram Vikas Parishad to pay to the complainants indemnity compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 5.2.2002 and compensation and cost in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order.

3. It would appear that Dineshbhai Ishwarbhai became a member of the scheme of Accident Insurance floated by the original opponent No. 1 Gujarat State Gram Vikas Parishad by making payment of stipulated amount of Rs. 100/-. The insurance benefit was payable to the members of the scheme to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. Unfortunately the said member i.e., Dineshbhai became a member of the scheme on 5.1.2003 and died accidental death on 5.2.2003. The claim was submitted to the first opponent. However, as the claim was not honoured by the opponents complainants were required to approach the learned Forum with prayer for indemnity compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, compensation on the head of mental harassment in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and cost in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The first opponent resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that opponent No. 2 was its field supervisor and opponent No. 3 was its field worker, that they were entrusted with the work of registering members by taking stipulated membership fee in the sum of Rs. 100/-, that although the amount of Rs. 100/- was collected from the deceased Dineshbhai on 5.1.2003 the same was not credited by the said opponent Nos. 2 and 3 within the stipulated period of 10 days and hence the insured’s name was not registered with the opponent No. 4 Insurance Company for the purpose of obtaining benefit of accidental insurance scheme. It was, therefore, contended before the learned Forum that the first opponent would not be liable for the claim made by the complainants. It was on account of negligence on the part of the second and third opponents that the insured’s name could not be registered with the opponent No. 4 Insurance Company. The first opponent produced the affidavit of the opponent No. 2 stating that it was his mistake that he failed to write the name in the register by tendering the amount of Rs. 100/- received by him under the scheme. Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 contended that they acted as the agents and they would not be liable for the claim in the complaint. They, however, asserted that the deceased insured was informed that the risk with regard to his insurance will attach after 30 days of the payment of Rs. 100/- to the opponent No. 2.

5. After considering the material placed on record and hearing the submissions of the parties learned Forum came to the conclusion that Dineshbhai had become member of the accident insurance scheme and as opponent Nos. 2 and 3 acted as agents for the opponent No. 1 they would not be personally liable for the claim. Learned Forum also came to the conclusion that as the scheme was floated by the first opponent it was contractually liable to the complainants who happened to be respectively the father and widow of the deceased insured Dineshbhai.

6. Learned Advocate for the original opponent No. 1, now appellant before us, would submit that as the original opponent Nos. 2 and 3 were the employees of the first opponent, the first opponent could not be held liable for the claim under the scheme particularly when the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 did not tender the amount of Rs. 100/- as orally agreed by them, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the amount of fee from the deceased Dineshbhai. This argument will have no merit inasmuch as even for the actions or omissions of the agent or the employee the principal would be vicariously liable. Besides, in the present case receipt of Rs. 100/- was issued by th