STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO. 207 OF 2018 (From an order dated 28.3.2018 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Balasore in C.C. No. 94 of 2014)

1. Arati Singh, aged 65 years, W/o Late Madhu Singh

2. Sukuri Singh, aged 81 years, W/o Late Bhikunath Singh, Both are of At/Po – Panchughata, Ps – Jaleswar, Dist – Balasore … Appellants Vrs.

1. The Area manager, Food Corporation of India, At – Khaparapada, Po – Azimabad, Ps – Town, Dist – Balasore

2. The Chief Manager, LIC of India, Balsore Branch,.

Zilla School Road, Balasore

3. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Balasore Branch, Zilla School Road, Balasore ... Respondent s ____________

For the appellants : Mr A.K.Samal , Advocate For respondent No.1: M/s Kintara Jena & Associates For respondent No.2 : M/s R.K.Pattnaik & Associates _____________

P R E S E N T HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT, DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER AND MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER DATED THE 17^th NOVEMBER, 2022

O R D E R

MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986 (here in after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the Learned District Forum.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the, complainant no.1 is the wife of the deceased Madhu Singh and the complainant no.2 is the mother of the deceased. The complainant stated that the deceased was working as handling labourer in Food Storage depot of F.C.I ,Jaleswar under the supervision of O.P.No.1 .During tenure of service, the deceased obtained three life Insurance policies from O.P bearing No.583665658 (2) 583619323 and (3) 583665859 with sum assured of Rs. 2 lakh, Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1 lakh commencing on 24.02.2003, 28.03.2003 and 15.06.2003 respectively. The complainant no.1 is the nominee for policy No.1 and 3 and the complainant no.2 is the nominee for policy no.2.The complainants have stated that all these three policies were made under salary savings scheme. As per scheme, the premiums were deducted from his husband’s salary every month by the employer of the insured and was being remitted to the L.I.C. The complainant no.1 further alleged that her husband died on 19.01.2013 due to jaundice. After death of her husband the complainant approached O.P.no.2 and 3 for settlement of the claim but they informed the complainant about the gap in payment of premium of all the three policies and no deduction was made from the salary of the deceased. The complainant further stated that, they received Rs.1,49,067/- out of total Rs.2,93,200/- from policy No.1 bearing No.583665658, Rs.40,173/- out of total payable amount of Rs.87,060/- from policy No.2 bearing No.583619323 and Rs.39,586/- out of Rs.1,26,692/- from policy No.3 bearing No.583665879 in total Rs.2,28,826/- out of Rs.5,06,952/- from O.P Branch Manager L.I.C. The complainants claimed the balance amount of Rs.2,78,126/- along with death benefits from O.Ps. Hence they filed this complaint.

4. Upon notice O.Ps filed their written version. The O.P.no.1 in his version contended that,Late Madhu Singh was working as a handling labourer under FCI and he was irregular in his duty. He was a labourer engaged is no work no pay basis. The O.P.no.1 further averred that the policies were not salary savings scheme and the OP No.1 never deducted premium from his salary and never remitted to L.I.C. The O.P.no.1 further contended that, the premiums under L.I.C policies, were deducted from the remuneration and were being paid to the L.I.C. During his absence period he was not paid any salary and premium could not be deducted from his salary. In such case the insured was to make such payment. The O.P.no.1 admitted that the deceased was suffering from jaundice and died on 19.01.2013 while he was in service. The O.P.no.1 further submitted that no such payment was due against the salary of Madhu Singh, therefore the