BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., Hon’ble President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Tuesday the 27th day of February, 2007
C.C. No.112/2006
Mrs. S. Sala Bokharia, W/o. Late. P.Hussain Khan, Aged 38 years, Muslim,
Working as a Jr. Assistant, Gramapanchayat, Pattikonda,
…Complainant
-Vs-
- Superintendent of Postal,Supt., of Post Offices,
Kurnool Region - Kurnool - 518 005.
2. Sub-Post Master,
Sub-Post Office, Pattikonda-518 380. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Mrs. Rafat, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite Parties and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P. Act., seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- with 24% interest from 01-05-04 till dated, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.1,000/- as costs and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant and her husband had taken separate postal insurance policies by paying Rs.109/- on 31-03-04 and covering the life risk for Rs.25,000/- from opposite party No.2. On 28-04-04 the opposite party No.1 issued policies separately to the complainant and to her husband and the same was received at Pattikonda on
01-05-04 by the complainant and the husbands policy was return unserved as he died on 01-05-04 in an accident at Aspari. Thereafter, the complainant approached orally and requested opposite party No.2 for claim benefit of her deceased husband under the said policy but opposite party No.2 rejected on baseless ground as policy is not received by the deceased on 01-05-04 but as the said policy was dispatched on 26-04-04 when the policyholder was alive and the premium towards the said policy was already received, hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the assured amount of Rs.25,000/- covered under the policy of the deceased. Hence, the above conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents viz:1)death certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Aspari 2)Certified Copy of report in Cr.No.68/04 of Aspari P.S 3)Certified Copy of inquest report in Cr.No.68/04 and 4)original payment receipt dated:31-03-04 issued by sub-postmaster Pattikonda for Rs.109/-, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
- The written version of opposite party No.1 admits that the complainant and her husband taken rural postal life insurance policies by paying Rs.109/- each and the proposal of P.Hussain Khan was accepted and the acceptance memo was dispatched to the insured by registered post under R.L.No.1142 dated:05-04-04, but the said registered letter was returned to opposite party on 09-07-04 with endorsement “deceased” return to the sender. It also further submits that the policy holder P.Hussain Khan died on 01-05-04 but in accordance with the instructions of circle office of the postal department in Lr.No.R.P.L.I/Gen/30/19-3/R.lgs/Corr dated:01-10-1997 if the insurant had expired before receiving the acceptance memo the liability of the Department of Posts for honouring the insurance contract does not exists and the advance premium collected at the time of acceptance of the proposal should be refunded and no claim would exist in these cases. In pursuance to the said clear cut rule position the Postmaster General Kurnool had sanction for return of first premium amount of Rs.109/- paid by the deceased to the nominee (complainant) and the complainant received the said amount on 28-07-06 at Pattikonda post office voluntarily without any protest, as such the complainant has waived her right to claim for further sum from the postal department. It lastly submits that the opposite parties have acted bonafidely and as per relevant rurals and circulars of the department and there is no failure on part of opposite parties in discharging of their duties and they are not liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz:1)postal life insurance policy of P.Hussain Khan 2)postal life insurance premium pass book of P.Hussain Khan and 3)letter dated:28-04-04 of Superintendent to post offices to Hussain Khan, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. It is a case of the complainant that she along with her husband has taken individual policies on 31-03-04 by paying Rs.109/- vide Ex.A4 from opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 issued separate policies and dispatched the same on 28-04-04 and the complainant received the said policy on 01-05-04 and her husbands policy was returned unserved as he died on
01-05-04 in any accident at Aspari. The complainant requested opposite party No.2 orally for claim benefits but the opposite parties did not pay the said benefits. But on the other side the opposite parties in their written version averments admits that P.Hussain Khan taken rural postal insurance policy vide Ex.B1 by paying Rs.109/- vide Ex.A4 and the acceptance memo vide Ex.B3 was dispatched to the insured by registered post and the said cover was returned to opposite parties on 09-07-04 with an endorsement “deseased” return to the sender.
9. The opposite parties submits that the acceptance letter dt:28-04-04 was not served on the policy holder, as the policy holder died before receiving the acceptance letter and hence the insurance of contract does not exists and there is no liability of the opposite parties towards the complainant. The opposite parties in support of their case relied on the instructions of the office of postal department in L.r.No.R.P.L.I./Gen/30/19-3/Rlgs/Corr dt:10-09-1997, it says that if the insurant expired before receiving the acceptance letter the liability of the department of posts for honoring the insurance contract does not exists and further stated that the advance premium collected at the time of accepting the proposal should be refunded and no claim exists in these cases.
10. But as per the particulars mentioned in Ex.B1 policy read with Ex.B3 letter of opposite parties as to the acceptance of insurance proposal by the opposite parties, the said policy in favour of the policy holder mentioned therein commenced from 31-03-04, when the policy is accepted by the insurance company infavour of the policy holder by issual of relevant policy in Ex.B1 covering the risk and its acceptance vide Ex.B3, the contract of insurance remains completed fully and it will not be within the reach of postal life insurance to revoke it, except in the circumstances covered under its terms and conditions. No terms and conditions of said policy envisaged on the reverse page of Ex.B1 says any where that the policy comes into effect from the date of communication of said policy to the policy holder or on receipt of any acknowledgement to the effect from the policy holder. Therefore, the attested xerox copy of letter dated:10-09-97 said to have been addressed by Government of India, Department of Posts office of the Chief Postmaster General, Abids DakSadan, Hyderabad addressed to the Post Master Generals, Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Kurnool and Visakhapatnam shall have any binding nature on the postal life insurance policy issued by the said insurance authority after acceptance of the insured’s proposal that to sufficiently prior to the demise of the policy holder.
11. The material criteria for consideration is the origination of the policy and on acceptance by the insurance authorities are not of its communication to the policy holder. The stand taken by the opposite party in reference to the above said letter limiting its liability to the premium paid doesn’t with stand for any reason.
12. As the policy holder died after issual of policy thereby satisfying the requirements of the coverage of said insurance. The complainant who is claiming the benefits under the said policy as the nominee of said policy holder remain entitled for the sum assured and hence there appears any justification on the part of opposite party in not entertaining the claim of the complainant as is warranted. Hence, the deficiency of opposite parties is coming into limelight in the said conduct and thereby attracts its liability to the claim of the complainant entitled under the policy of P.Hussain Khan.
13. As the complainant’s claim for settlement was not settled by the opposite parties and dodging on the matter till the complainant filed this complaint before the forum is sufficient for the complainant to cause immense mental agony, hence, she is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,000/- and as the complainant was driven to the forum for redressal by the opposite parties by not settling the claim, she is entitled to costs of Rs.1,000/- also. The opposite parties pendentilite of this case paid the first premium amount Rs.109/- to the complainant, the said amount shall be deducted from the assured amount payable to the complainant/ nominee.
14. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the assured amount of Rs.25,000/- by deducting Rs.109/-, Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 27th day of February, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Death certificate issued by panchayath secretary, Aspari.
Ex.A2 C.C. of F.I.R. in Cr.No.68/04 of P.S. Aspari.
Ex.A3 C.C. of Inquest report in Cr.No.68/04.
Ex.A4 original receipt, dt:31-03-2004, issued by sub-post master, Pattikonda.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Postal Life Insurance policy stating on the name of P.Hussain Khan.
Ex.B2 Postal Life Insurance premium pass book of P.Hussain Khan.
Ex.B3 Letter, Dt:28-04-2004 of Superintendent of post offices and to P.Hussain
Khan.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Mrs. Rafat, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
