Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 1.

2.        This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a policy in February, 1995 which was to be matured after ten years i.e. 17.2.2005. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant has paid the premium on 17.2.1995 in Bolangir  office. Thereafter, paid the premium through postal money order to Rourkela Branch as the Bolangir office was shifted to Rourkela. It is averred by the complainant that he deposited Rs. 1,200/- each on dated 6.3.1997, dated 10.3.1998, dated 9.3.2000, dated 28.3.2001 and dated  9.2.2002 through postal money order from Bolangir. It is alleged that the said amount has been lying there being in unidentified account. Complainant claimed to have deposited the premiums but the OPs 1 and 2 after maturity only sent a discharge voucher of Rs.2,496/- instead of Rs.21,036/-. Therefore, the complainant made grievance before OP Nos. 1 and 2 but it was in vain. So the complaint was filed.

4.        OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complainant has made initial installment of Rs.1,200/-. They further admitted that money order amounting to Rs.6,000/- has been received  and  those  amounts were lying with them in an unidentified account. They also agreed that complainant has not written policy number in those money orders for which they were not deposited in the account. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He also submitted that the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and barred by limitation. So, they have no any deficiency in service on their part.

5.        OP No. 3 filed written version stating that the money orders were sent to the addressee duly on time but couldnot find the exact date due to expiry of stipulated period and destruction of records. So, they have no deficiency in service.

6.        After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

The OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay the balance maturity amount of the policy amounting to Rs.18,636/- along with interest @9% per annum from 17.2.2005 till payment, and cost of Rs.500/-. The case against OP No. 3 is dismissed.”

7.        Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum without considering the written version filed by  OP Nos. 1 and 2 have disposed of the matter mechanically. According to him the money received  werelocated by  OP Nos. 1 and 2 are lying without any policy number mentioned thereon. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact that  any money received without any specification  cannot be allowed to be accounted to that account unless the specific policy number is assigned. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the discharge voucher signed by the complainant with regard to the receipt of Rs.2,496/-. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.        Learned Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that they have been unnecessarily added as  party because they are only carriers of the letters/money orders to OP Nos. 1 and 2.

9.        Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

10.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a policy from OP Nos. 1 and 2 and he has paid  first premium of Rs.1,200/-. It is also admitted fact that complainant has also sent like money orders but they did not bear policy number for which they were kept in an unidentified suspense account.However, in the written version, it is clear that the five vouchers were kept  as unidentified in the  suspense account admitted by OP nos. 1 and 2. In our opinion, those five money order amount should be also refunded to the complainant. Even if they are unidentified account they should have been  identified and paid to the complainant when the grievance has come to the knowledge of OP Nos. 1 and 2. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2. Mere payment of Rs.2,496/- by obtaining signature is not enough because  the money orders of Rs.1,200/- each for five instances kept as unidentified amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the full and final settlement by showing that voucher cannot be acceptable. Hence, we are of theview that the complainant should be entitled to the entire amount of Rs.6,000/- with interestbesides payment of Rs.2,496/-.

11.      In view of aforesaid discussion, while confirming the impugned order, we modify the impugned order by directing OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs.6,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment within 45 days from today failing which the impugned order will be revived.

12.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.