Garib Lal Sinhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 3285 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Garib Lal Sinhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                          1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                          WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 3291 of 2004

                           BETWEEN:-
                           GARIB LAL SINHIYA S/O H.L. SINDDHIYA, AGED ABOUT
                           61 YEARS, NEW MOTAR STAND H.N. 166 TAHSIL
                           MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR SONI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
                                 TRANSPORT SECRETATE BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P.R.T.C. HEAD OFFICE
                                 HABIB GANG BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    DIVISIONAL MANAGER M.P.R.T.C. SOUTH CIVIL
                                 LINE JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    DIVISIONAL ACCOUNT OFFICER OFFICE OF
                                 DIVISION   SOUTH  CIVIL  LINE JABALPUR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    DEPOT MANAGER M.P.R.T.C. MANDLA DEPOT
                                 M A N D L A DISTRICT MANDLA   (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           6.    SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER             LIFE INDID
                                 INSURANCE    CORPORATION           MARHATAL
                                 JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD TABISH
KHAN
Signing time: 06-02-2024
10:15:53
                                                              2
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that petitioner was employee of MPSRTC and premium for the Insurance Policy No.371057437 was to be deducted by the employer and to be deposited with the LIC.

It is submitted that though this premium was deducted by the employer but same has not been deposited with the LIC and, therefore, the employer is liable to compensate the employee.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and Others Vs. Rajeev Kumar Bhaskar, (2005) 6 SCC 188.

Thus, it is evident that under a Salary Saving Scheme of LIC a tripartite agreement was drawn between LIC, an employer and its employees for purchase of life insurance policies by employees, with employer ostensibly acting as agent for employees, but as per terms and modalities of agreement in fact acting as though agent for LIC (though not as insurance agent), most importantly, having to collect and pay premiums on deduction from salaries of employees, to LIC, relationship between LIC and employer and the legitimate expectations of insured employees have been discussed and it is held that LIC could not make the employee suffer consequences emanating from default on part of employers, its agent and had to bear the consequences thereof. Hence it was liable to pay out on policies wherein premiums had not been paid due to fault of the employer and, in any case, given the nature of the scheme, it was duty of LIC to inform the employee in case of non-receipt of premium from employer, which it had neglected to do so.

In view such facts, when employer fails to discharge its obligation, then

that obligation was necessarily required to be discharged by the LIC and, therefore, it is directed that LIC shall make all the payments arising out of the said policy with interest @9% from the date of outgo becoming due till the date of actual payment.

It is made clear that LIC will be free to recover any of the loss made to it in the hands of its agent by instituting independent proceedings against MPSRTC.

In above terms, petition is allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK