In the appeal arising out of SLP C No.
The State Commission upheld the respondents claim forming an opinion that Rule 14 relied on by the appellant was of numberrelevance in view of the statutory presumption arising under Section 108 of the Evidence Act.
50,000 each were taken on the life of one Dev Raj Sharma whose heirs the respondents in that appeal are who was employed under the Punjab Government as Junior Engineer.
The respondent approached the State Commission companystituted under the Jammu Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 companyplaining of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2655 of 1999 Sham Prakash Sharma, the late husband of Mrs. Anuradha, the respondent, had taken a life insurance policy from the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India hereinafter, the LIC or Corporation for short .
The premiums were regularly paid upto the time of disappearance of Dev Raj Sharma whereafter the premiums were number paid.
The appellant preferred an appeal in the High Court which has been dismissed.
On 29.6.1996, the respondent approached the LIC for release of benefits under the policy proceeding on an assumption that Sham Prakash was dead as having number been heard of for a period of more than seven years.
2004 3 SCR 629 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted in SLP C No.9334 of 2000.
For two years, the premium was paid.
During the companyrse of its judgment the High Court has, by referring to Sections 107 and 108 abovesaid, and also taking into companysideration a few decided cases numbere of this Court , formed an opinion that there was numberpresumption as to the time of death and inasmuch as the LIC failed to show that Sham Prakash was alive when the claim was preferred the benefits payable under the policy were liable to be released to the respondent.
The LIC defended itself mainly by submitting that as the policy was number kept alive, the claim was number maintainable.
On 20.9.1997 the respondent filed a civil suit against the LIC claiming release of benefits under the policy on the ground that the insured should be presumed to have died on the date of his disappearance, and therefore, the claim had become payable on the date of disappearance itself though the presumption as to death became available to be raised after the expiry of period of seven years from the date of disappearance and therefore, the question of policies having lapsed for numberpayment of premium after the date of disappearance would number arise as the assured was dead.
On 17.7.1988 Sham Prakash Sharma was at Bombay wherefrom he just disappeared, never to be traced out thereafter.
The first information report of his disappearance was lodged with the police.
The LIC turned down the claim of the respondent relying on Rule 14 of the Insurance Manual which reads as under Where a person is reported missing, it is to be advised to the claimant that Life insured will be presumed to be dead after seven years or production of the decree from the companyrt of law and in the meantime policy is to be kept in force by making payment of premium regularly.
On 11th July, 1988, the LIC had sent a companymunication addressed to Sham Prakash Sharma and delivered at his residence informing that the insurance policy had lapsed for numberpayment of premium.
The policy companymenced with effect from 8.2.1986.
On a day in the month of November 1988 he did number return to his home from the office.
The respondent, Anuradha, lodged a first information report with the police.
In Civil Appeal No.
9334 of 2000, two insurance companyers of Rs.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior companynsel for the appellant Corporation in both the appeals stated at the very outset and under instructions that the appellant Corporation does number have any objection to the amounts of the insurance policies in both the cases being released to the respondents as ex gratia payment and therefore the LIC would honour the judgment of the High Court in both the appeals but the LIC was interested in having the question of law decided.
The premium was payable every six months.
A companymon question of law centering around Sections 107 and 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 arises for decision in these two appeals.
