In the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. C. S. ___/2011 In the Matter of: Smt.

Kamla Versus LIC of India & Another Defendants Plaintiff

MEMO OF PARTIES Mrs. Kamla, w/o late Sh. Satbir, r/o T-30, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083 Plaintiff VERSUS 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India Through The Branch Manager LIC of India F-19C Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 2.Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD Hqrs. Townhall Delhi-110006. Defendants DATE: PLAINTIFF DELHI THROUGH S. MISHRA, ADVOCATE KUSGARA AND SARTHAK LAW FIRM

In the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. C. S. ___/2011 In the Matter of: Mrs. Kamla Versus LIC of India & Another Defendants Plaintiff

Suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- due to Plaintiff on account of Sum assured under the Life Insurance Policy mental No 111916972 along with compensation along for with harassment and legal expenses

interest MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.

That the late husband of Plaintiff Sh. Satbir was employed with the Rerspondent no. 2, in the capacity of Safai on Karamchari while and he his was

death

occurred

13.04.2006,

still employed in the same capacity.

2.

That whilst on service, the late husband of Plaintiff was issued a life insurance policy no 111916972 by the Defendant no. 1, under the name of jeevan surbhi and the said policy had commenced on 28.11.2002. The copy of the said policy has been annexed with this suit as Annexure S-1.

3.

That the premium for the aforesaid policy i.e. Rs. 557/-, on a monthly basis, was deducted from the monthly salary of the late husband of the Plaintiff by the Defendant no. 2 and

deposited by them with the Defendant no. 1.

4.

That the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the aforesaid policy taken by her husband at the time of his demise in 2006 and came to know about the aforesaid policy only in the year 2010.

5.

That

the

Plaintiff

approached

and

requested

the Defendant no. 1 for payment of claim under the aforesaid policy but however they did not respond at all in and also the refused claim of to the

acknowledge, Plaintiff.
6.

writing,

That after the submission of the claim by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 did not care to inform her about the status of the claim of the policy for a fairly large amount of time.

7.

That

the

Plaintiff under

was

forced Act,

to

put

an

application

the

RTI

2005

dated

15.03.2010 to know the status of the claim preferred policy.

8.

by her

against

the

aforementioned

That the Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed to receive a reply of the aforementioned from RTI the

application

dated

10.06.2010

Defendant no. 1, wherein the Defendant No. 1 refused to pay the claim against the above policy by holding that the policy was lying lapsed on the date of death of the life

assured due to non payment of premium. The copy of the RTI Application as well as the reply of the Defendant No. 1 has been annexed as Annexure S-2. (Colly.) 9. That the Plaintiff vide RTI application dated 11.08.2010 addressed to the Defendant no. 2 sought to know the salary details of her late husband as well as the details of the

deductions made therein for payment of monthly premium to the Defendant no. 1. However, the reply of the Defendant no. 2 was an attempt to obfuscate the matter and the Plaintiff was

unable to gain any additional knowledge from the same. The copy of the RTI Application as well as the reply of the Defendant No. 2 has been annexed as Annexure S-3. (Colly.) 10.That the Plaintiff served a legal notice to both the Defendants dated 14.03.2011 demanding payment of monies payable under the terms of the above mentioned policy in addition to the compensation delay, their dealing aforesaid agony brazen with payable and to Plaintiff harassment and The for due the to in the as

mental

negligence the issue.

inaptitude copy of

legal

notice

has

been

annexed

Annexure S-4.

11.That the Defendants have not cared to reply to the aforesaid legal notice of the Plaintiff in any manner till date.
12. That under the premium paying arrangement for

the aforementioned policy, the Defendant no. 2 was responsible from of for deducting of and the the premium Deceased

amount, husband

the

salary

the

Plaintiff,

subsequently

remitting the same to the Defendant no. 1 and the late husband of Plaintiff had absolutely no role in it.
13. That

the

premiums

for

the

aforementioned

policy were regularly deducted from the salary of the late no husband 2 during of Plaintiff his life by time the and

Defendant

service period.
14. That the deduction of the premium is in itself

sufficient to constitute the liability of the insurer i.e. the Defendant no 1.

15. That the non receipt of premium as alleged by

the Defendant no. 1, in spite of deduction of the same from the salary of the insured by the Defendant no. 2, is an insufficient ground for denial policy.
16. That

of

claim

under

the

life

insurance

the

Defendant by not

no.

acted the

in

gross

negligence

remitting

deducted

premium

amount

for

the

aforementioned

life

insurance policy to the Defendant no. 1 and the Defendant no. 1 also acted in greater

negligence by not raising the same with either the deceased husband of the plaintiff or with the Defendant no. 2.
17. That the Defendants are jointly and severally

liable to pay the monies accrued and payable to the Plaintiff in addition under to the the aforementioned legal expenses,

policy

interest for delayed payment and compensation payable for the delay, agony and mental

harassment to Plaintiff. 18.That the valuation of suit for the Court fees purposes is Rs. 19.That the cause of action first arose in favour of the Plaintiff when Defendant no. 1 refused to pay her the amount of monies payable under the terms and conditions of the aforementioned Life Insurance Policy and it also subsequently arose claim on has each and every occasion by of the action when her

been The

denied cause

Defendants is still

therefrom.

continuing and subsisting. 20.That this Honble Court has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.

21.That

the

necessary

Court

fees

have

been

affixed. 22.That the suit is being filed within limitation and is not time barred. PRAYER It that is therefore this most respectfully may prayed be

Honble

Court

kindly

pleased:
1. To

pass

an

Order

directing

the

Defendant no. 1 to pay an Amount of Rs. 50,000/Only) Sum to (Rupees the Fifty

Thousand being terms the

Plaintiff under of the the

Assured

and

conditions Life

aforementioned Policy.
2. To

Insurance

pass

an

Order to pay

directing an

the

Defendants

further

amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)on account of legal expenses, payment for the interest for delayed payable mental

and

compensation agony and

delay,

harassment to Plaintiff. 3.To pass an Order directing the

Defendants to pay interest @ 24 % p. a. from the date of the claim

to the Plaintiff on the sum above till payment on account of delayed payment. 4.To pass any other/further order(s) in favour of Plaintiff and against the this facts case. Defendants Honble and as deemed in fit view of by of the

court

circumstances

Delhi Through Date:

Plaintiff

Counsel

VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on ____day of ____that the are contents of my application from para 1 to 16

true and correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed there from. Para 17 to 22 are legal Paras and Last para is the prayer to this Honble Court.

Date: Delhi

Plaintiff

In the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. C. S. ___/2011 In the Matter of: Smt. Kamla Versus LIC of India & Another Defendants Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT
I, Kamla, w/o late Sh. Satbir, r/o T-30, Mangolpuri,

Delhi-110083, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the plaintiff in the aforementioned

case and am fully conversant with the facts of the case and hence competent to swear this affidavit. 2.That my counsel on my instructions has drafted this accompanying suit for recovery and the same has been read to me in vernacular and I have understood the same. 3.That the contents may be of read the as accompanying part of this application

affidavit and the same has not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity. DE PONENT VERIFICATION: Verified at Delhi on ____day of ____that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from. Date: Place: Delhi DEPONENT

In the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. C. S. ___/2011 In the Matter of: Smt. Kamla Versus LIC of India & Another INDEX S.NO 1. 2. PARTICULARS Memo of Parties Suit for recovery along compensation with for PAGE NO COURT FEE Defendants Plaintiff

mental harassment and legal expenses along with interest 3. 4. 5. DELHI List of documents with documents. Vakalatnama

Drawn & Filed by: DATE: Kushagra & Sarthak Law firm