Ashok Kumar Garg, complainant/respondent no.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum with the averments that he had taken a life insurance policy for Rs.1 Lac from the Life Insurance Corporation, petitioner herein. As per terms and conditions of the policy, he was entitled t receive Rs.20,000/- as survival benefits in January 1998. Complainant after completing all the formalities applied for payment of the survival benefits. After some time, he came to know that the said sum was paid by the petitioner to -2- someone else. Complainant filed the complaint No.3207 of 1999 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi. During the pendency of the proceedings, on the basis of the statement made by the LIC the Superintendent of Post Office was added as party respondent. The District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the postman had not delivered the cheque at the address mentioned by the LIC on the registered envelop but the same was delivered to one Mr. A. K. Garg who encashed the said cheque. Mr. A. K. Garg to whom the cheque was handed over died subsequently. The cheque was delivered at a different address than that was mentioned on the registered letter. Considering all these facts the District Forum arrived at the following conclusion: “It is proved from the above that the Postman had not delivered the letter to the complainant, Shri Ashok Kumar Garg who was the addressee of the letter of the address noted on the required letter, but due to fault and mischief played by the Postman, it was delivered to some other Sh. A. K. Garg at A-2/52, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The said Sh. A. K. Garg had encashed the said amount -3- and has since expired. The fact that the recipient of the letter Shri A. K. Garg has since expired further goes to prove that the letter was not delivered to Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, the complainant of this case. We are therefore convinced that the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/- due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Postal Department and not the LIC”. On the basis of aforesaid, the District Forum directed the Superintendent, Post Office to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 9.3.1998 with costs of Rs.10,000/-. Against that order, Superintendent Post Office, respondent no.2, preferred appeal No.A-1023/2001 before the State Commission. For some unknown reasons, the postal authorities thought that the LIC was not a necessary party and hence, LIC was not joined as a party respondent. Without noticing this aspect, State Commission arrived at the conclusion that LIC would be liable to pay the amount and not the postal authorities and accordingly modified the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. -4- Counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Commission, petitioner has already paid the awarded amount to the complainant/respondent no.1. Now the dispute remains between the petitioner and the Superintendent Post Office, respondent no.2. The point required to be determined is as to who out of the two would be liable to pay the amount. The impugned order of the State Commission on face of it is illegal and erroneous. Petitioner was not joined as a party respondent before the State Commission. The State Commission could not pass an order adverse to the petitioner without issuing notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to it. The State Commission has passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice. Since the amount has already been paid to the complainant, the case is remitted back to the State Commission to decide inter se -5- liability of the petitioner LIC and the respondent no.2 Superintendent Post Office as to who should pay the amount. Petitioner though its counsel and the respondent no.2 through its Postal Assistant Ishwar Singh present in the court are directed to appear before the State Commission on 03.01.2012. Since it is an old case we request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and if possible, within four months of the date of appearance. | 
