JAWAHARLAL CHIMANLAL MODY vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 3, 1994 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (District Forum for short). Respondent No. 2 took life insurance endowment policy from respondent No. 1-Life Insurance Corporation of India (Corporation for short) on March 28, 1983. The sum assured under the policy was Rs. 25,000/- and the policy was for a period of 10 years. It is the case of the appellant that the said policy was taken by him to safeguard the interest of respondent No. 2 and his family and it was he who had paid the premium. Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have assigned the policy in favour of the appellant on April 21, 1987. Respondent No. 2 left the job of the appellant and it is the case of the appellant that even after respondent left his job, he continued to pay " premium. After the period of 10 years for which the insurance was taken expired, the appellant demanded insurance money from the Corporation on the basis of aforesaid assignment. The Corporation, however, refused to pay the insurance money mainly on the ground that the assignment was not in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy and the rules. The appellant, therefore, approached the District Forum by way of Complaint No. 551 of 1993 for recovering from the Corporation Rs. 27,475/ - together with 18% interest p.a., Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 2,000/- by way of cost. Respondent No. 2 was joined as opponent No. 2 to the complaint.

THE complaint was resisted by both the respondents. THE Corporation, among other things, contended that insurance policy was not duly assigned in favour of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim any money from it on the basis of such assignment. Respondent No. 2 denied having assigned the policy to the appellant. THE District Forum by its impugned judgment and order came to the conclusion that the Corporation was not guilty of deficiency of service inasmuch as it had reasonable ground for repudiating the claim made by the appellant. In the view of the District Forum, the proper course for the appellant to adopt is to file suit in the Civil Court and that his complaint was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, the District Forum dismissed the appellant''s complaint. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, the appellant has approached this Commission by way of this appeal. There is no dispute that insurance policy assuring a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was taken out for a period of 10 years on March 28, 1983. The policy matured on March 28, 1993. The appellant has claimed money due under the policy on two grounds viz., (i) it was he who had paid premia; and (ii) respondent No. 2 had assigned the policy in his favour. Respondent No. 2 was employee of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that in order to safeguard the interest of the appellant and his family in case of appellant''s death in accident he had taken the aforesaid insurance policy. Respondent No. 2 was employed to drive the truck of the appellant. We do not know under what circumstances and in what manner insurance premia were paid. There is no evidence on record to prove that insurance premia were paid by the appellant. But, even assuming for the sake of argument that they were paid by the appellant, the possibility of his having paid them from the salary or other amount payable to respondent No. 2 could not be ruled out. Premia might have been paid under the conditions of employment. It is conceded by the learned Advocate for the appellant that even after respondent No. 2 left appellant''s job, he continued to work for him on part time basis. Therefore, even if premia paid were paid by the appellant after respondent No. 2 left his job, it is quite probable that they were paid out of the wages payable to respondent No. 2. Therefore, the mere fact that premia were paid by the appellant would not entitle him to receive insurance money due under the policy held by respondent No. 2

Now, the next question is whether respondent No. 2 had assigned the insurance policy in favour of the appellant. In support of his contention that the insurance policy was assigned in his favour, the appellant is relying on the form of assignment prescribed by the Corporation, a copy whereof is placed on record. This purported assignment is dated 23.1.85 and the rubber stamp affixed on it shows that it was received by the Corporation''s office on 21.4.85. There is no explanation for the delay in submission of the form to the Corporation. But apart from that, there are printed instructions on the form prescribed by the Corporation. Instruction No. 4, among other things, provides that if the assignor is illiterate, he must affix his thumb impression to the assignment before Magistrate, Justice of Peace or Gazetted Officer who should certify to the effect that the thumb was affixed in his presence after thoroughly understanding the assignment. In the instant case, admittedly, respondent No. 2 is an illiterate person and he is purported to have put his thumb impression below the assignment. It is also not disputed that the thumb impression purported to have been made by respondent No. 2 was not made before the Magistrate, Justice of Peace or Gazetted Officer. There is also no other evidence to prove that the thumb impression is of respondent No. 2. Person who is alleged to have identified and attested the thumb impression of respondent No. 2 is also not examined. No finger print expert has been examined to prove that the thumb impression is that of respondent No. 2. In the course of argument, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the matter be remanded to the District Forum to give one more opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence to prove thumb impression of respondent No. 2. There is absolutely no reason to remand the matter to the District Forum. The appellant had ample opportunity to prove his case in the District Forum and nobody prevented him from leading evidence to prove the thumb impression of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has denied that he had assigned the policy in favour of the appellant. He has denied having put his thumb impression below the so-called assignment. The appellant, therefore, knew as to what he was required to prove before the District Forum. In any case, no fruitful purpose will be served by remanding the matter, since, admittedly, the thumb impression of respondent No. 2 was not attested by or made before Magistrate, Justice of Peace or Gazetted Officer. Therefore, the Corporation could not be held to be guilty of deficiency in service. Respondent No. 2 was the consumer and appellant claimed right only by virtue of assignment. Therefore, unless assignment was made in accordance with instructions of the Corporation, the Corporation was not bound to recognize the assignment. The appellant had no insurable interest in respondent No. 2 and we fail to see why he would insure respondent No. 2''s life and pay premia. Even if the appellant had paid premia as alleged by him, it is obvious that he must have paid them for and on behalf of respondent No. 2. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the appellant has failed to prove his case or establish that the Corporation was guilty of negligence or deficiency in service. Since the assignment in favour of the appellant is not proved, it is respondent No. 2 who is entitled to receive the insurance money from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 should, therefore, pay the insurance money to respondent No. 2.

PARTIES had led evidence before the District Forum to prove their respective cases and the evidence led by the parties has been fully considered. Therefore, there is no question of the appellant now approaching the Civil Court for relief against the respondents. Apart from the fact that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Corporation, the appellant has failed to prove his allegation on merits also. It is because the appellant has failed to prove his case on merits that we hold that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Corporation. We, therefore, do not agree with the observation of the District Forum that if thought proper, the appellant may approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. There is now, no question of appellant approaching the Civil Court for any relief so far as subject matter of the complaint is concerned. The appellant having failed to prove the assignment in his favour, although he had ample opportunity to do so, there is now no question of his approaching the Civil Court for any relief as observed above. Since the appellant has failed to prove the assignment in his favour, it is respondent No. 2 who is entitled to the insurance money from the Corporation. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the appeal and dismiss it with cost. The appellant to pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of cost to the Corporation. Appeal dismissed with costs.