IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 335/09 DATED 03.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Chidananda, S/o Late B.M.Neelappa, working as Driver in KSRTC B 1976, KSRTC Depot No.1, Bannimantap Mysore. R/at D.No.25, NGO’s Colony, Rajandranagar, N.R.Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.H.V.Sreenath, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Accounts Officer, KSRTC 1st Division, Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Division Controller, KSRTC Bannimantap Mysore.<br /> 3. The Post Master, Post Office at Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> 4. The Postal Department, Office of Chief Post Master, General Karnataka Circle, Bangalore.<br /> (By Sri. G.P.Chandrashekara, Advocate for O.P.1<br /> And Sri.S.Shivanna, Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 07.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 29.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 03.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 MONTHS4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint, seeking direction to the first and second opposite parties to furnish information regarding deduction of the premium from the salary of the complainant and to third and fourth opposite parties to pay entire policy amount and further, damages for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, complainant is working as a Driver under first and second opposite party. He had taken endowment policy No.KTSE/8647-9 on 21.02.1991. Monthly premium was Rs.174/-. The premiums were deducted from the salary of the complainant by the first and second opposite parties. On 05.04.2009, the policy was matured. However, for the last five years, complainant was paying the premium since first and second opposite parties did not want to take responsibility. At the time of payment of last premium on 21.01.2009, complainant handed over the bond and the passbook to the third and fourth opposite parties with a hope that, he will get matured amount of about Rs.1,00,000/. However, complainant was told that, there is difference amount to the extent of Rs.1,566/-. The complainant paid that amount. Then, third and fourth opposite parties sent cheque for Rs.32,886/- to the complainant. Since, the complainant has to receive matured amount of the policy amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- but cheque for Rs.32,886/- only was sent. The complainant returned the said cheque. On 05.06.2009, third and fourth opposite parties sent a notice to the complainant, stating that, the policy had lapsed due to non-credit of premium 12/91 to 8/92, within first three years. Hence, as per the rules, maturity value is not eligible. The complainant made an application to the first opposite party to provide information regarding deduction of the premium from the salary from the year 1991 to 2004. First and second opposite parties did not care to comply the request. Even, there was no answer. The application was submitted under Right to Information Act. Further, it is alleged that, third and fourth opposite parties received Rs.1,566/- without objection. On 11.03.2002, fourth opposite party had allowed the complainant to change the nomination. At the fag end, third and fourth opposite parties have put forth legal hurdles, contending that, the policy was lapsed etc., On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. First and second opposite parties in the version, have contended that, the fact that the complainant had taken postal endowment assurance policy is not within their knowledge and if at all, there was such policy, it is an agreement purely between the complainant and postal department. These opposite parties are unconcerned. No service charges is paid by the complainant. Policy of KSRTC is that the gratuities passengers are not valid passengers. That principal equally apply to the complainant. Also, it is contended that, in the complaint, the complainant has narrated that, he received letter regarding non-credit of premium and hence, policy was lapsed. The complainant did not give attention towards monthly payment of premium. The carelessness of the complainant has produced unwanted happening of the episode. It is stated that, these opposite parties have not received any notice from third and fourth opposite parties. The monthly deduction of the premium of the policy was made in the salary of the complainant on the oral base and there is no consideration for the same. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. Third and fourth opposite parties have contended that, frivolous and mis-conceived complaint is filed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. Complainant had premium book and used to get the entries made. He did not explain, why deduction of premium from the salary was stopped. It is contended that, the complainant knew well that premium from 12/91 to 8/92 were not received by these opposite parties. It is contended that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. It is contended that, complainant has dragged these opposite parties for vexatious litigation. Further, it is contended that, maturity value of the policy was taken up for consideration by the competent authorities, which was intimated to the complainant. But, by that time, the complaint was filed before the Forum. Further, it is stated that, the complainant gave in writing that, if these opposite parties pay the maturity value, he will withdraw the complaint. Accordingly, maturity value of Rs.92,560/- was granted. Out of that amount, interest on nine months unpaid premium amounting to Rs.8,998/- is deducted and a sum of Rs.83,562/- has been paid to the complainant. Hence, the complainant instead of withdrawing the complaint, he is prosecuting with it. It is stated that, the complainant cannot question deduction of interest cum penalty. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for first and second opposite parties, second opposite party has filed his affidavit and for third and fourth opposite parties Senior Superintendent of Post Offices has filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant as well as the opposite parties. Also, we have perused the entire material on record.<br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of all or any of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs??<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- Admitted facts are not repeated here. After filing the complaint, third and fourth opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs.83,562/- to the complainant. The maturity value of the policy was Rs.92,560/-. The unpaid amount is Rs.8,998/-.<br /> <br /> 9. In respect of the said unpaid amount, third and fourth opposite parties have contended that, that amount pertains to penalty and interest on nine months premium, which was unpaid.<br /> <br /> 10. Thus, from the version of third and fourth opposite parties and other material on record, one fact is clear that, they were liable to pay the maturity value of Rs.92,560/- to the complainant. Admittedly, till filing the complaint that amount let it be deducting certain amount was not offered or paid to the complainant. The complainant has stated that, even though he was entitled to the maturity value of the policy nearly about Rs.1,00,000/-, third and fourth opposite parties had sent a cheque only for Rs.32,886/-. Hence, as to why third and fourth opposite parties did not pay the maturity value of the policy even after deducting certain amount has done now, no reasons are assigned. Hence, we can conclude that, there is deficiency in service on the part of third and fourth opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 11. However, as regards Rs.8,998/- third and fourth opposite parties contend that, it is the penalty and the interest on unpaid premiums. The unpaid premiums, pertains to 12/91 to 8/92, that is, nearly about 17 – 18 years old. Hence, under these circumstances, the claim of third and fourth opposite parties that, they have deducted the penalty and the interest there on, is justified. However, that does not mean that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 12. So far concerned to firs and second opposite parties, it is definite and specific case of the complainant that these opposite parties were deducting the premium from the salary. That is alleged in the complaint and stated by the complainant in the affidavit. These opposite parties in the version also admitted that, the monthly premium of the policy was deducted in the salary of the complainant on the oral request. Thus, the fact remains that, these opposite parties have deducted the premiums, which are in question that is 12/91 to 8/92. When admittedly, these opposite parties deducted the premiums from the salary of the complainant have not credited the same to the third and fourth opposite parties. Of course, the question would be, whether these opposite parties rendered service for consideration. In the version, these opposite parties have contended that, there was no consideration for deduction of the premium from the salary and crediting the same to the third and fourth opposite parties. Thus, the learned advocate submitted that, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, there is no deficiency in service. However, the fact remains that, in spite of deduction of the amount from the salary of the complainant, these opposite parties did not credit the same to the third and fourth opposite parties and on account of it, the complainant has to suffer loss to the extent of Rs.8,998/-, the amount which has been deducted by third and fourth opposite parties out of the maturity value of the policy. Under the circumstances, in the interest of justice, even though we cannot direct first and second opposite parties to pay this amount, the complainant being their employee and these opposite parties having deducted the premium amount from the salary of the complainant, they cannot be allowed to be enriched themselves and hence, we would like to make an observation that at their discretion they are kind enough to make payment of the said amount to the complainant, without giving any scope for further litigation in this regard.<br /> <br /> 13. As regards, the allegation of the complainant that, first and second opposite parties did not furnish information sought under the Right to Information Act, from the records, it is clear that, firstly the application was not in prescribed form and secondly, no fees was paid. Hence, no deficiency in service in this regard can be attributed.<br /> <br /> 14. As considered here before, the complainant was entitled to the maturity value of the policy in the month of April 2009. But, third and fourth opposite parties have paid the amount only after filing of this complaint. Hence, under the circumstances, towards mental agony and inconvenience caused, we feel it just to award a sum of Rs.5,000/-. <br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed against third and fourth opposite parties.<br /> 2. The complaint as against first and second opposite parties is dismissed with an observation to take note of paragraph No.12. <br /> 3. The third and fourth opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- compensation to the complainant towards mental and inconvenience caused, within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 4. Further, third and fourth opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, the cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 3rd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />