2010(4) CPR 329
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma and Chander Shekhar Sharma, Members
Sarvari Bibi and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Divisional Manager LIC of India
and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 234 of 2007
Decided on 14.9.2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Varinder Tejta, Advocate.
For the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2:Mr. Rajneesh Maniktala, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum can refer parties to Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Insurance—Life policy—Repudiation of death claim for alleged non-payment of premium—Complaint dismissed by District Forum—Dispute concerning dispatch of cheque is a disputed question of fact which needs to be proved/disproved by leading oral and documentary evidence as well as requiring examination/cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses to be produced by parties in support of their respective pleas based on record—Only barest minimum provisions of natural justice, fair play after hearing are to be followed while adjudicating consumer proceedings—Complaint not maintainable—Appellants given liberty to take such recourse as available to them in accordance with law. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
Result: Appeal allowed with directions.
Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President—Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, late Shri Rehmat Ali was insured with respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the sum of Rs.15,00,000. Premium payable was half yearly on 28th of March and 28th of September every year. Appellant No.1 was the nominee being his wife. It is admitted case of the parties that Rehmat Ali died on 10.11.2003. Policy bond placed on record by the respondents No. 1 & 2 is Annexure RW1. This policy came into force with effect from 28.3.2003.
2. From the record of the complaint, it is made out that the deceased Rehmat Ali was working as a Contractor with respondent No. 3 and had been awarded work of road cutting.
3. Now the dispute starts between the parties. According to the appellants, on a request having been made to respondent No.3 by their predecessor, i.e. late Shri Rehmat Ali, the said respondent remitted Rs.49,839, the premium amount to the LIC of India at its Sundernagar Branch, respondent No.2. As per averments made in the complaint, this cheque was sent under certificate of posting, copy whereof is Annexure C4. Copy of the cheque is Annexure C3. This cheque, C3 is dated 20.9.2003. Thus, according to them, premium that was due on 28th September, 2003 was remitted well in time on behalf of the deceased life assured to respondent No. 2. This cheque was received according to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 at Sundernagar on 23.12.2003.
4. Before proceeding further in the matter, we may notice that premium that was due on 28.9.2003 could be paid upto 28.10.2003, as such if the money had been remitted till this date, it would have been a valid payment of premium during the life time of the deceased life-assured. Appellants with a view to support their plea that the premium was paid on 20.9.2003 at the instance of deceased to respondent No.2 by respondent No.3, have also placed on record a copy of the statement of accounts, Annexure C5. This statement according to them is from the accounts book of respondent No.3, wherein the amount of premium vide cheque, Annexure C3, had been shown to have been debited to the account of the deceased Rehmat Ali on 20.9.2003 itself. That being the position, according to the appellants, death having taken place after the payment of the premium well before the due date as per policy bond, Ex.RW1, they were liable to be indemnified by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. In this background when appellants claim was not settled by respondent Nos. 1 & 2, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was lodged, alleging deficiency in service against them. Respondent No.3 was added because stand of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was that the cheque was received on 23.12.2003, and there was deficiency of Rs.1,309 in the insurance premium, as such it was sent back to the life-assured i.e. Rehmat Ali and he was called upon to make this deficiency good. Entry of receipt of cheque on 23.12.2003 is made in Ex. RW2, S.S.S. Remittance Received Register of this date. According to them it was bona fide same day returned to the deceased, calling upon him to make the deficiency good. Cheque was also sent along with it. As the policy could not have been revived without interest on the arrears of premium in terms of Clause 3 of policy bond, Ex.RW1, therefore on 17.1.2004 it was again sent under registered post. It was received back and the envelope in which it was sent, contained the postal endorsement which when translated into English, reads as under:
“Addressee has died, hence returned”
Therefore, vide Annexure RW5, dated 10.3.2004, appellant No.1 was informed regarding return of cheque in the envelope containing the aforesaid endorsement and the cheque was returned to her. This resulted in filing of the complaint.
6. When put to notice by the District Forum below, complaint was contested on a number of grounds including policy having lapsed, appellants having not come to Court with clean hands, unless the policy was revived, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were not liable. The cla