Asstt. Area Manager, S.E.C.L. vs Meera Garg

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 10.12.2003 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 11.3.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioners/opposite parties 3 and 4 and respondents 2 and 3/opposite parties 1 and 2 were directed to pay the insured amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to respondent No. 1/complainant.

REGISTRY has reported that there is delay of 690 days in filing revision. Along with revision petition the petitioners have filed application seeking condonation of the delay in question. It is alleged that the Counsel of petitioner''s did not inform about dismissal of appeal to the petitioners who came to know of it vide order dated 28.9.2005 passed by the District Forum in Execution Case No. 27/05. Counsel of petitioners at Bhopal suggested that a revision would lie against the order of State Commission. Petitioners thereafter contacted their Counsel at New Delhi and handed over the material for filing this petition. Delay in filing revision was, thus, not deliberate or intentional. Order under challenge would show that though the Counsel of respondent No. 1 and respondents 2 and 3 were present on 10.12.2003 but no one attended the Commission for petitioners and appeal was thus heard and decided in the absence of petitioners. It is not the case of petitioners that their Counsel was unaware of the date of hearing on 10.12.2003. In the application petitioners have not given any explanation regarding absence of their Counsel at the time of hearing of appeal. Application is also silent in regard to any action taken against the Counsel for allowing the appeal to be decided ex parte. Further, copy of the order dated 10.12.2003 must have been sent to the petitioners free of charge by the REGISTRY of State Commission. It has not been denied in application that such a copy of order was not received by the petitioners. In that backdrop, on basis of allegations as made in application the delay in question does not deserve to be condoned. Coming to the merits of case, Lallu Prasad Garg, husband of respondent No. 1 was employed with the petitioners. He had taken policy of Rs. 2,50,000/- under Salary Saving Scheme and amount of Rs. 244/- per month towards premium was being deducted from his salary. Life assured died on 3.8.1999. On claim being repudiated on ground of policy having lapsed due to non-payment of premium for the month of November 1998, the respondent No. 1 filed complaint which was contested by the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3. Petitioners alleged that in the month of November, 1998 no amount was available for being deducted towards premium from the salary of assured.

Submission advanced by Mr. Ajit K. Sinha for petitioners was that it was only the liability of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount. According to him, in terms of the letter dated 13.3.1997 (copy at page 27) the assured had consented to face the consequences arising out of non-payment of premium and the assured, thus, should have ensured that premium for November, 1998, was remitted by him direct to the Insurance Company. Submission is, however, without any merit. It is the liability of both the Insurance Company and employer to pay the amount under the policy in question. Further, even if the amount of premium for November, 1998 was not available for being deducted from the salary of assured it is not the case of petitioners that the assured through a notice was informed about the consequences of non-receipt of that premium as held in the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corpn. and Others v. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar, V (2005) SLT 567=(2005) 6 SCC 188. Petitioners cannot evade liability of payment on the basis of said letter dated 13.3.1997. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error on either of the said counts in the order of State Commission. For both the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.