IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.<br /> <br /> Dated this 16th day of November 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 525/2010<br /> <br /> Present 1) Sri. T.H. Narayanagowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant B.G. Usha C/o Chandrappa, Badanavalu village & Nanjangudu Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.R Advocate)<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Opponent 1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Nanjangudu.<br /> 2. Postal Administrative officer, Central post office, Nanjangudu.<br /> 3. Post Master, Badanavalu post office, Badanavalu village, Nanjangudu Taluk, Mysore District.<br /> (O.P.No.1 by Sri K.R.S. Adv., O.P.No.2 by Sri D.G.P. Adv., and O.P.No.3 by Sri K.M.S. Adv.)<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana Gowda, President)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponents for directing the opponent No.1 to pay the LIC policy amount of Rs.28,604/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. and also to direct the opponent Nos.1 and 3 to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the complaint etc.,.<br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> <br /> That the opponent No.1 was liable to pay the Insurance amount of Rs.28,604/- to the complainant. She came to know that on 27.04.2010, the opponent No.1 has sent the cheque bearing No.215873 for Rs.28,604/- to the complainant by RPAD. But the same was not reached her in spite of waiting for a reasonable period of time. Hence, she approached the opponent Nos.2 and 3 and enquired about the said letter sent by the opponent No.1. In spite of the same, the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 have not given any information about the said letter nor taken any steps to deliver the same to the complainant. On the other hand, the opponent No.3 has given the arrogant and adamant reply when enquired about the said letter. Hence, the complainant has given a complaint to opponent No.2. In spite of the same, the opponents have not taken any steps and thus the opponents have not given proper service and thereby committed the deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponent claiming the reliefs as sought for in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3) The opponent No.1 in his version has denied the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant and his liability of paying any compensation etc., as false and further contended that as per the request of the complainant, the opponent No.1 has promptly sent the cheque for Rs.28,604/- in favour of the complainant on 27.04.2010 by RPAD without any delay. The said letter containing the cheque was sent to the complainant through Sub-post Office, Kavalande situated within the jurisdiction of the opponent No.2 under registered letter No.098 dated 27.04.2010. Subsequently, on the complaint of non-receipt of the said letter made by the complainant, the opponent No.l has also addressed a letter to the opponent No.2 to confirm the delivery of the said letter to the complainant. Thus, the opponent No.1 has contended that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on his part and urged for the dismissal of the complaint against him with costs.<br /> <br /> 4) The opponent No.2 in his version has admitted the fact of sending the registered letter No.098 on 27.04.2010 by the opponent No.1 for delivery of the same to the complainant and further contended that after receiving the said letter, the Sub-post master, Kavalande village, promptly sent the same to the opponent No.3 on 28.04.2010 itself for delivering the said letter to the complainant. But, the opponent No.3 kept the same illegally in his custody without delivering the said letter to the complainant. On the complaint of the complainant regarding non-delivery of the said letter, the Sub-post Master, Kavalande as called for the report from the opponent No.3 regarding the delivery of the said letter. But, on 22.06.2010 the opponent No.3 has given the arrogant reply to the effect that he had no time and power to deliver the same. Therefore, necessary action was initiated against the opponent No.3 and secured the undelivered letter from the opponent No.3 on 29.06.2010 and attempted to deliver the same to the complainant on the same day and also on 09.07.2010 by appraising the real facts regarding delay in delivery of the said letter. But, the complainant has refused to receive the said letter. Thus, there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No.2. But, the delay in delivery of the said letter was solely due to the willful negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opponent No.3. Therefore, the opponent No.3 alone is liable for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Thus, the opponent No.2 has urged for the dismissal of the complaint against him with costs.<br /> <br /> 5) The opponent No.3 in his version has specifically denied all the allegations of delay in delivery of the letter and the deficiency in service alleged against him as false and further contended that after receipt of the said letter on 29.04.2010 for delivery, he went to the residence of the complainant for a period of 7 days continuously, but she was absent in the house and therefore, he has informed her husband to convey the matter to the complainant for collecting the said letter from him. In spite of the same, the complainant never approached him for collecting the said letter. Hence, ultimately, he approached the complainant once again to deliver the said letter, but the complainant went away without receiving the said letter on the ground that urgently she has to attend the meeting of Sri Shakthi Mahila Sangha. Thus, all the efforts made by him for the delivery of the said letter to the complainant went in vein. Therefore, he has returned the said letter to the opponent No.2 with an advice to the complainant to collect the same from the opponent No.2. Instead of collecting the said letter from the opponent No.2, the complainant has filed this false complaint solely with an intention of harassing him. Mainly on these grounds, the opponent No.3 has contended that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on his part and urged for the dismissal of the complaint in the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 6) After filing of the said versions by the opponents, the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon, the complainant has filed her affidavit and the affidavit of one witness in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her case and closed her evidence. Thereafter, the opponent Nos.1 and 2 have also filed their affidavits in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of their defences and closed their evidence. But, the opponent No.3 has not filed the affidavit in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, it was taken that the opponent No.3 has no evidence on his side and then posted the case for hearing arguments. At that stage, the complainant and the opponent No.2 have filed their written arguments and the opponent No.2 produced the undelivered registered letter containing the cheque along with a memo dated 08.10.2010 and the opponent No.1 filed a memo along with fresh cheque for Rs.28,604/- in lieu of stale cheque produced by the opponent No.2. The complainant has also received the fresh cheque before this Forum on 20.10.2010 and also reported the encashment of the said cheque and urged for awarding the interest for the delayed period, compensation and cost of the complaint. Hence, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the case was posted for orders.<br /> <br /> 7) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions taken by both the parties including the arguments submitted by their advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows::-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency in service against any of the opponents?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the interest on the cheque amount for the delayed period, compensation and cost as claimed in the complaint?<br /> 3) What Order?<br /> <br /> 8) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative in so far as the opponent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.<br /> Point No.2:- Partly in the affirmative. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final order for the following, <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9) Point Nos.1 and 2:- In view of the payment of the policy amount made by the opponent No.1 before this Forum by way of issuing fresh cheque to the complainant, the questions now required to be looked into by this Forum are whether any of the opponents have committed the deficiency in service in delivering the letter containing the cheque as alleged by the complainant and whether they are liable to pay the interest on the cheque amount for the delayed period, compensation and cost as claimed in the complaint. Admittedly, the opponent No.2 after securing the undelivered registered letter addressed to the complainant from the opponent No.3 on 29.06.2010 and produced the same before this Forum on 08.10.2010. Thus, the material on record clearly discloses that the registered letter dated 27.04.2010 sent by the opponent No.1 to the complainant through the Sub-Post Master, Kavalande was not delivered to the complainant by the opponent No.3 till the same was secured by the opponent No.2 on 29.06.2010. The material on record and the version of the opponent No.2 including his evidence clearly disclose that the Sub-post Master, Kavalande promptly forwarded the said registered letter to the opponent No.3 for delivering the same to the complainant. But, the opponent No.3 though received the same on 29.04.2010 itself, kept the said letter in his custody without delivering the same to the complainant and thus the opponent No.2 has contended that the non-delivery of the said letter to the complainant is solely due to the willful negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opponent No.3 and he is alone liable for the same and not the opponent No.2. <br /> <br /> 10) Of course, the opponent No.3 denied the negligence and deficiency in service alleged against him as false and further contended that the non-delivery is solely due to the deficiency on the part of the complainant. But, in order to support the said contention, the opponent No.3 has not filed any affidavit in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record to support the said defence of the opponent No.3. In the absence of any supporting evidence on record, it is not possible to believe the said defence of the opponent No.3. On the other hand, as already discussed above, there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record to show that the registered letter received by the opponent No.3 on 29.04.2010 for delivering the same to the complainant was not delivered by him and ultimately, on the complaint made by the complainant, the opponent No.2 secured the same from the opponent No.3 on 29.06.2010 and produced before this Forum on 08.10.2010 and the fresh cheque was produced by the opponent No.1 on the same day. Thus, there is delay of more than 5 months in producing the same before this Forum and therefore, the opponent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to pay the reasonable rate of interest for the delayed period along with reasonable compensation and costs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, we feel it just and reasonable to award the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the cheque amount of Rs.28,604/- for the delayed period from 01.05.2010 to 08.10.2010, compensation of Rs.2,500/- and cost of Rs.500/-. As already stated above, the deficiency in service is only on the part of the opponent No.3. However, the opponent No.3 being the agent or part time employee of opponent No.2, it is the duty of the opponent No.2 to see that the said letter was delivered to the complainant within the reasonable period of time and the same is lacking in this case. Therefore, the opponent No.2 is directed to pay the aforesaid amounts to the complainant first and then to recover the said amount from the salary of the opponent No.3. Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in affirmative and the point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 11) Point No.3:- In view of the reasons and findings recorded on the point Nos.1 and 2, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part as stated above in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,<br /> <br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part and the opponent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the cheque amount of Rs.28,604/- to the complainant for the delayed period from 01.05.2010 to 08.10.2010.<br /> <br /> The opponent Nos.2 and 3 are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,500/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> The opponent No.2 is directed to pay all the aforesaid amounts first to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order and then recover the said amounts from the salary of the opponent No.3.<br /> <br /> Complaint against the opponent No.1 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 16th day of November 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> <br /> S.R.L<br />