West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/35/2019

Banomali Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dpt. Of Post, Superintendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2024

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Shri Sudip Majumder  President in Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Banomali Das, S/o. Lt. Nibaran Das, a resident of Vill. and P.O.- Changurai, Dist.- Birbhum purchased Postal Life Insurance Policy being policy No. WB 90853 CS being sum assured Rs. 40,000/, date of maturity 20/03/2017, amount of premium per month Rs. 230/.

            It is the case of the complainant that the complainant approached the OP Department on 08/05/2018 for redemption the aforesaid policy by submitting the original R.P.L.I. Certificate being Policy No. “WB 90853 CS” dated 20/03/2003 issued by the OP Department.

            Be it mentioned herein that due to loss and/or misplacement of the P.R. Book, the complainant Lodge a complaint at Suri P.S. on 08/05/18.

            Be it again mentioned herein that according to the petitioner the original money receipt was lost incidentally although the OP department has obtained all the premium amount which are also within the record of the OP department and therefore the OP department can’t repudiate the claim of the complainant’s assured sum in the vague pretext on the non-availability of the original payment receipts, even the OP department cannot back out from paying the sum assured value amount and other benefits in the event of the missing of Money receipt and such ground shown by the OPs are tantamount to sheer negligence and/or deficiency and/or unfair practices as apparent from the OP department activities.

           

                                                                    

 

It is the next case of the complainant that he filed an application under Sec. 6 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 vide letter dated 10/12/2018 addressing to the OP No. 1 but the OP failed to reply the same.

           

It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant paid all the premium amounts and he is entitled to get the benefits of the aforesaid R.P.L.I. Policy along with all benefits. But the O.Ps did not settle the claim of the complainant.

 

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and he has prayed to the Commission, viz ..

“(A) That the OP may be directed to pay redemption value of Rs. 40,000/ to the complainant as

maturity sum assured vide P.L. I No. “WB 90853 CS”.

            (B) That an interest @ 18% per annum as per Interest Act 1978 over and above recovered on and from 21/03/2017 and 24/12/2018 respectively till the realization of the complainant’s claimed amount.

            (C) The OP may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/ for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the ops default.

            (D) The Ops may be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ as litigation charges and legal cost for this case.

            (E) Any other relief or reliefs may be passed considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

 

It is the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OP members that except the first premium of Rs. 230/ they did not receive any further premium from the complainant against the RPLI policy in question. Thereafter, the said policy was lapsed and the complainant is not entitled to get any claim against the  policy in question.

 

It appears from the case record that the OP members filed their written version and written notes

on arguments. The OP sides filed evidence in chief. The OP members denied all the complaints against them.

 

The Complainant’s side submitted evidence in chief and written notes on arguments. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which were compared with the original ones. Thereafter, the Ld. Advocates for the both parties made oral arguments in support of their case.

           

 

Heard Ld. Advocates for the both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            The complainant purchased Postal Life Insurance Policy from Head Post Office, Suri and as such, the complainant is a consumer under the OPs and the OPs are the service provider of the complainant and thus, it is clear that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/. OPs/Post Office, Suri are situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 21/03/2017 and the case has been filed on 11/03/2019 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

            We have gone through the record of this case carefully and also considered the petition of the complainant, written objection of the OP, evidence-in-chief of both sides, questionnaires of both sides with their respective replies and finally the written notes of arguments of the parties along with their oral submissions.

            The complainant has submitted that he has lost the original Premium Receipt (PR) Book in respect of the RPLI policy No. WB-90853-CS for which he has made a GDE bearing No.511 before the Suri Police Station on 08/05/2018. When he went to the Post Office of the OP No. 2 to claim the maturity

 

value of Rs. 40,000/ by submitting the claim form with the concerned GDE but, without the said P.R. Book, such claim was not entertained by the OP/Post Office due to loss of such vital documents as stated.

            It is the submission of the OPs / Post Office that the complainant did not deposit the premium of the policy dated 20/03/2002 except initial payment of Rs. 230/ and thereafter no deposit was made subsequently. As a result of which the policy got lapsed due to failure to pay the premium/premia as per clause No. 6 of the ‘Lapsing of Policy’ , given in the terms of the contract of the said policy.

            As there was no document in the custody of the complainant in respect of payment of premium due to losing of the said PR Book, this Commission regarded it proper to call for records of the post office. Hence, in terms of the provision of Sec. 38(9) (b) of the C.P. Act, 2019 this Commission directed the OP/Post Office by order dated 23/07/2024 to file documents meaning thereby the relevant Ledger Folio of the account from the beginning of the policy to its date of closure.

            The OPs submitted some documents with Firisti dated 31/07/2024 bearing policy summary of the complainant and its status in two pages. We have perused those documents and it is being found that except the initial payment of premium of Rs. 230/ as on 01/03/2002 no payment status, if any, has been furnished. It is the further submission of the OPs/Post Office that after the year 2002 all manually maintained Ledge Folio Account Books were made computerized as it is a voluminous task to preserve them and those Ledgers were retained for 10 years thereafter and subsequently destroyed. Accordingly,  the computerized data which have been duly certified by the OP No. 1, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Birbhum, a Central Govt. Official through Firisti dated 31/07/2024 cannot be false and fabricated.

            But, we are surprised enough to find that the said OPs in their written objection dated 24/01/2020 at Page-1 under point No. 9.(b) stated, “That it is confirmed that no deposit in respect of said policy was found in the schedule of PLI receipt from the period after 01/03/2002 on consulting both, manually prepared PLI schedule and Meghdoot software of this Department……”

            Further, it has been reaffirmed by the OPs in their written notes of argument dated 02/07/2024 at Page.1 under Point No. 3 that, “That no deposit in respect of the said policy is found in the schedule of PLI receipt from the period after 01/03/2002 on consulting both manually prepared PLI schedule and Meghdoot Software of this Department.”

            Such written submissions from the part of the OPs make it clear that the OPs have their “manually prepared PLI schedule” in custody till dated 24/01/2020 and as on 02/07/2024. Such contradictory statements by the Ld. Advocate of the OPs at the time of oral arguments in comparison with

 

the written submission as stated above, have made us to conclude that their submissions are not fair, believable or beyond all reasonable doubts. It appears to us that the OPs are trying to hide something or trying to evade something. It is also settled that if the consumer/insured loses his/her documents, such as policy bond, PR Book etc. or those documents get destroyed out of flood, fire incident or otherwise, it is the duty of the insurer a specially the Government insurer to protect such documents not only upto the date of maturity of that policy but also covering the normal retention period thereafter i.e. upto 10 years as orally submitted by the OPs. But, the OPs have failed to do so and thereby they are deficient and negligent in providing service. If they would able to submit those documents in support of non-depositing of premiums concerned, this Commission had no hesitation to treat the complainant defaulter. It is also necessary to mention that the OPs should preserved that manual record in question after finding them on 24/01/2020 as noted in their W/O since the case was filed on 11/03/2019 for the interest of the trial but the OPs have failed to do so. Now, from the above discussion it is clear that the OPs have submitted before this Commission in writing that they have/had found the “manually prepared PLI schedule” but, in their oral submission the OPs have submitted that they have destroyed the same after 10 years from the year of computerization of those records in the year 2002. So, question arises, if the OPs had destroyed those documents in the year 2012 how could they were able to find them out on 24/01/2020 and 02/07/2024.

           

It has also appeared from the case record that the OPs/Post Office through letter No. CPC/Suri/PLI/Lapse/19-20 dated 13/06/2019 issued by the Postmaster, HSG-I, Suri HO-731101, intimated the complainant to revive the lapse policy by paying the premium as soon as possible, and to ignore the communication if already paid. This has made this Commission astonished because such letter was issued by the OPs /Post Office not only after the date of maturity of the concerned policy as on 20/03/2017 but also after filing the instant case as on 11/03/2019. It has made clear to us that there is no consistency in the works of the OPs/Post Office with the actual facts and circumstances as claimed.

 

Hence, such act(s) of the OPs/Post Office amounts to negligence and deficiency in service under the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 

Point No. 4:

For this deficiency in service the complainant is well entitled to get the relief/relieves from the instant case.

 

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                    that the instant C.C. Case No. CC/35/2019 be and same is allowed

on contest with cost.

The OP members are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 40,000/ (Forty thousand only) to the complainant as maturity value of the insurance policy along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum calculating on and from 11/03/2019 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) till its realization.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP/Insurance Company within 45 (Forty five) days

from this date of order, in default of which, the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

 The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.