The Manager, UPSRTC vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Anr.

A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT)

The Complainant alleged a deficiency against the Life Insurance Corporation of India as well as the Petitioner, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for having not received his entitlement arising out of a life insurance policy purchased by the Complainant on 15.01.1995 for a period of 6 years, the annual installment whereof was Rs.3,851/-. The said amount was to be deducted annually from his employees' provident fund for 6 years. According to the Life Insurance Corporation it received the installments of only 2 years and the balance was not received whereas the Complainant alleged that the amount stood deducted from his account and therefore he was entitled for his amount.

The District Commission allowed the Complaint holding both the Opposite Parties to be liable jointly and severally.

The Life Insurance Corporation aggrieved by the said Order filed an Appeal before the State Commission contending that since it had not received the installments there was no deficiency on its part and it is for the State Transport Corporation to explain the same. The Appeal filed by the Life Insurance Corporation was allowed holding that the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation was liable to pay the same and accordingly absolved the Life Insurance Corporation from its liability.

The Provident Fund Authorities were not made parties to the litigation even though a letter dated 19.10.2004 had been filed indicating that the Employees' Provident Fund Organization had transferred the premium to the Insurance Company for all the 6 years. This fact was however not proved by any evidence to substantiate the actual transfer of the said amount nor any such material has been placed by the Petitioner to establish the same. Thus the contentions were raised only on the basis of the averments made in the affidavits without any proof to support the same. The Life Insurance Corporation had throughout maintained that it had received installments only for two years whereas the balance remained unpaid. As noted above, this fact remained unrebutted and the Petitioner was unable to establish the transfer of the said amount by producing cogent evidence to support its contention.

We may point out that the Petitioner State Transport Corporation had not filed any Appeal and in fact had submitted to the Order of the District Commission dated 20.10.2010. It is only after the Order was modified in Appeal in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation that the present Revision Petition had been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that it is the Provident Fund Office which was responsible for the same and no money was retained by the Petitioner as such no liability could be fixed by it. The order of the State Commission has been challenged and it is urged that the same deserves to be set aside.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that even if a defendant in a suit does not file a Written Statement then also the Plaintiff has to succeed only on its own allegations and for that he has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of C. N. Ramappa Gowda versus C. C. Chandregowda and Anr. (2012) 5 SCC 265 which in turn relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and Anr. versus Sunil Madan and Anr.(1999) 8 SCC 396.

The reliance placed on the said decision is totally misplaced inasmuch as in the instant case no Appeal was filed against the Order of the District Commission by the Petitioner and therefore the said decree of the District Commission became final as against the Petitioner. It was only the Life Insurance Corporation which had filed the Appeal and the relief was granted in its favour by the State Commission. In such circumstances the present Revision Petition is totally misplaced as the scope of a Revision Petition is very limited and a finding recorded by the Fora below cannot be questioned unless there is any perversity. In the instant case the findings of the District Commission itself was not challenged by the Petitioner by filing any Appeal and consequently the findings recorded by the Fora below now cannot be questioned by the Petitioner in a Revision Petition as if it were a regular Appeal.

The Petitioner as noted above has failed to produce any cogent evidence with regard to the transfer of all the six installments which it could have done appropriately and has also failed to avail of the appropriate remedy before the State Commission and consequently we do not find any error much less a legal error so as to construe any material irregularity in the Order of the State Commission. Accordingly the Revision Petition has no merits and is accordingly rejected.