DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:   CC- 31 of  2014
 

             Basir Ulla Molla
         Ramnagar South,
         Near Western Club,
         Ramnagar, Agartala.        .…..............Complainant.

    
        __________VERSUS__________

         1. Director Postal Services,
Agartala, Head Post Office,
Post Office Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.    

      2. Post Master,
Post Office Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.         ............. Opposite parties.
    

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SHRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

SHRI B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant             : Sri A. Sengupta, 
                      Advocate.                      
                                              
For the Opposite Parties        : Sri P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate assisted
                      by Sri Pranabashis  Majumdar,
                      Advocate.
                       
    
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :-   23.02.15.

 J U D G M E N T

        This a complaint U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein after referred to as the Act') filed by the complainant, Basir Ulla Molla of Ramnagar South, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Director of Postal Services, Tripura, Agartala and Post Master, Agartala Head Post Office over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

2.        The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had purchased Postal Life Insurance Policy No-AM 29354-UC from Halflong Post Office Assam on 02.04.1997. Subsequently, the said policy was transferred to Khliehriat Post Office, Meghalaya and then to Agartala Head Post Office on 11.08.1999. The face value of the insurance policy was Rs. 2 lac. On maturity he was entitled to get Rs.4,09800/- including bonus plus terminal bonus and the maturity dated was 28.02.13. On 28.03.13 he submitted his claim petition to the O.P. No.1 for making payment of the matured value of the policy together with the relevant documents as required.  Since he did not receive the payment within the reasonable time, he issued 3 letters dated 10.613, 5.8.13 and 8.10.13 to the O.P. No.1 for payment of the matured value of the policy but to no avail. Ultimately on 28.12.13 the O.P. No.1 sanctioned the matured value of the policy of Rs.4,09800 in favour of the complainant vide sanction memo dated 28.12.13 and he received the amount on 02.01.14. According to the complainant, the delay caused by the O.Ps in making the payment of the matured value of the policy amounted to negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps and hence he is entitled to adequate compensation with interest for the delayed payment.

3.        The complaint was contested by the O.Ps stating interalia, that due to series of transfer of the insurance policy from one Post Office to another the processing of the case was delayed. Further that, as per Rule 52 (2)(i) of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules, 2011, the complainant is entitled to exgration payment of interest @8% P.A. on the unsettled amount of claim for the period beyond 30 days from the actual receipt of the claim. But he did not make approach to the authority with such claim. Since he did not make approach to the authority with his claim for the interest, the question of negligence and deficiency on the part of the O.Ps did not arise at all.
                
4.        In support of the claim, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1: copy of claim petition,
    Exhibit 2:copy of letter dated 05.08.13, 
    Exhibit 3: copy of sanction memo dated 28.12.13,
    Exhibit 4: copy of cheque dated 03.01.14.
        
5.    On the other hand, one Sri Subrata Das, Superintendent (HQ), Office of the Directorate of Postal Service has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 as witness of the O.P. side.
    No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the O.Ps.
            FINDINGS:
6.        The Points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are:
whether the O.Ps unnecessarily caused delay in making payment of the matured value of the policy of the insurance;
Whether the O.P. was guilty of negligence and deficiency in rendering service.
7.        We have already heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.
8.         The admitted position in this case are
         (i) the complainant had purchased a Postal Life Insurance Policy bearing No- AM 29354-UC on 02.04.1997 from the O.P. No.1.
         (ii) the date of maturity of the policy was 28.02.13 on  maturity, the complainant preferred the claim vide Exhibit 2 with the O.P for payment of the matured value of the policy on 28.02.13;
         (iii) the O.P. No.1 issued sanction memo (Exhibit-4) on 28.12.13 for a sum of Rs.4,09800/- being the matured value including bonus plus terminal bonus and
         (iv) The O.P. No.2 issued cheque (Exhibit-5) for the said amount on 30.01.14 which was received by the complainant on 02.01.14.
9.         It is the plea of the O.Ps that the case of the complainant got delayed due to series of transfer of the policy  from Halflong Post Office, Assam to Khliehriat Post Office, Meghalaya and then to Agartala Head Post office, Tripura. It is denied that there was any lapse on the part of the O.Ps in making payment of the matured value of the policy . It has come out from the evidence of the complainant that the Insurance policy was transferred to Agartala on 11.08.99 long before the date of maturity of the policy and it got matured on 28.02.13. Therefore, the plea taken by the O.Ps is absolutely untenable that the delay for payment of the maturity value of the policy occurred due to series of transfer of policy from one Post Office to another. The O.Ps have failed to produce any evidence to substantiate their plea that before processing the matter the O.P. No.2 had to get the policy enquired from other Post Offices wherefrom the policy was transferred to head Post Office, Agartala.
         
10.         The O.Ps have taken another plea that as per Rule 52(2)(i) of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules, 2011, the complainant is entitled to exgratia payment of interest @8% P.A. on the unsettled amount of claim for the period beyond 30 days from the actual receipt of the claim, but the complainant did not make approach to the authority for his claim of interest.
11.         We are not in agreement with the abovesaid contention of the O.Ps for the reason that if the rule provides for exgratia payment of interest for the unsettled period beyond 30 days from the actual receipt of the claim, the duty casts upon the O.Ps to add the additional interest with the maturity value of the policy at the time of payment of the full maturity value of the policy to the complainant. The question of making approach to the authority by the insurant does not arise at all.
12.        As we know, usually 3 months' time is taken for settling the insurance claim. The O.Ps No.2 paid the full maturity value of the policy including bonus plus terminal bonus  on 02.01.14 though he preferred the claim on 28.03.13 followed by repeated reminders dated 10.06.13, 05.08.13 and 08.10.13. But the O.Ps did not respond to it in time. The claim of the complainant should have settled by the end of May, 2013. There was delay on the part of the O.Ps in not paying the matured value of the policy within the period of 3 months from the date of submission of the claim petition. In the absence of any good reason there was no justification whatsoever for making the payment of the matured value of the policy of insurance as late as on 02.01.14. 
    
13.        There is no doubt in our minds about that non-payment of the matured value of the policy of insurance to the insurant within the stipulated period without any good cause certainly it amounts to negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps and it causes mental agony and harassment to the insurant. We have already pointed out that the O.Ps have failed to show any sufficient cause for causing delay in making payment of the matured value of the policy  to the complainant within the reasonable time.
    
14.        In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act, filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. Since the O.Ps have already paid Rs.4,09800/- as the matured value of the policy including bonus plus terminal bonus on 02.01.14, we direct them to pay the interest @9% P.A. on Rs.4,09800/- from the date of submission of the claim petition on 28.02.13 to 01.01.14 i.e., for the delay in payment. The O.Ps are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) for harassment and mental agony to the complainant with cost of litigation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). The O.Ps will have to pay the said amount to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the payable amount shall carry interest @ 12% P.A. till the payment is made.

15.                                                                                      A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM.
            AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.