KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.69/2019

JUDGEMENT DATED: 19.04.2024

(Against the Order in C.C.No.131/2017of CDRF, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by R.P. Sandeep, Authorised Representative)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Dhananjayan)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN: MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order in C.C.No.131/2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short).  As per the order dated 05.10.2018, the complaint was allowed by the District Commission directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) plus bonus, with 8% interest on the maturity amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) from 16.08.2017 till date of realisation. Opposite parties 1 & 2 were further directed to pay  Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation for the mental agony and financial difficulties suffered by the complainant along with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as costs.  All the amounts shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to realise 9% interest per annum on the total amount due to him from the date of the order till realisation.  First and second opposite parties have   filed this appeal challenging the said order.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:

The complainant has taken a Postal Life Insurance (PLI) Policy No.
KL-116468-CS from the 1^st opposite party for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) on 16.08.2010 for a period of seven years.  It is an endowment policy maturing on 16.08.2017.  The complainant is a Kerala State Government employee and the premium for his Postal Life Insurance policy was being deducted from his salary regularly.  The premium is paid to the Department of Posts through Office of the Accountant General, Kerala and credits to the respective policies will be done by the postal Dept from Central Processing Centre, General Post Office, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complainant had submitted the maturity application of his insurance policy on 09.08.2017 for processing at Central Processing Centre (CPC), Head Post Office, Palakkad.  However, he came to know that the policy was updated till December 2016 only as the recovery schedule along with the Demand Draft in respect of policies of State Government employees have been received from the Office of Accountant General, Kerala only up to December 2016. The opposite parties informed him that the maturity application could not be processed due to non payment of instalments from January 2017.  According to the complainant entire premium till the date of maturity is already deducted from his salary and it is for the postal Department to collect it from the govt.  As no serious action was taken by them for payment of the maturity amount, the complainant filed this complaint for getting the maturity amount with interest, compensation and costs.

          3.       Notice was issued to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version. The first and second opposite parties filed joint version and they admitted having insured the complainant vide Postal Life Insurance Scheme with Endowment Assurance Policy No.KL-116468-CS for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) for seven years from  16.08.2010. They submitted that they are not responsible for the delay in posting of premium ledger credits and is helpless in the settlement of claim unless full premia is paid and the duly reconciled schedules containing the details of recovery are received by them.  The delay in sanctioning the maturity claim pertaining to the policy of the complainant was due to the delay in receipt of premium for the months of January 2017 to July 2017.  Though premium was recovered from the employees in the respective months itself, the same was transferred to Department of Posts only on 29.12.2017. They filed additional version raising a contention that the Accountant General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram had to be impleaded for the proper adjudication of the complaint as the delay is on their part in transferring the amount. According to the first and second parties there is no deficiency of service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint

          4.       As per the additional version of the first and second opposite parties, the complainant filed an application to implead Accountant General as supplemental opposite party.  Application was allowed and complaint was amended accordingly.  Notice was issued to the supplemental 3^rd opposite party.  They submitted that no representation regarding missing credits has been received by them from the complainant.  The duty of the supplemental 3^rd opposite party is limited only to the extend of drawal and issuance of D.D. in favour of Senior Post Master, GPO, Thiruvananthapuram for the amount equal to the amount booked by Treasury denoting the monthly total of the PLI deduction.  They are not liable for any delay in crediting the premium amount and there is no deficiency in service on their side.

          5.       Evidence in the complaint consists of proof affidavit filed by the complaint and Exhibits A1, A2 and X1 were marked on his side.  Exhibits B1 to B3 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  There was no oral evidence on either side. On the basis of the evidence adduced the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the first and second opposite parties have filed this appeal.

          6.       Heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in payment of the maturity amount was due to non remittance of the premium from January 2017 onwards. They are not able to pay the maturity amount without getting all the instalments of premium till maturity date. They cannot be held liable for the delay in transferring the premium deducted by the employer to them. The learned counsel submitted a petition for accepting an additional document which is the receipt dated 27.07.2018 given by the respondent/complainant acknowledging the receipt of Rs.70,400/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) being the maturity amount with bonus under the policy. It was not objected by the learned counsel for the respondent and hence it was allowed. As the maturity claim was settled during the pendency of the complaint, the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for setting aside the order of the District Commission.

7.       The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that he had authorised deduction of premium from his salary and it was done regularly till maturity date. It is the duty of the postal department to get it transferred to their account on the due dates. There was no communication from the appellants regarding default in payment of premium till the date of maturity. Had he received any information regarding non receipt of the premium, he would have contacted his employer for clearing the dues, if any. Despite frequent follow up after the maturity date, the appellants did not take any serious action for settlement of the claim. As there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, he prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the District Commission.

8.       We have considered the submissions on both sides and examined the records. The complainant is a Kerala State Government employee and the premium for his Postal Life Insurance was deducted from his salary.  He had paid the premiums up to July 2017 and had submitted all the necessary documents before the Superintendent of Postal Department for getting the maturity amount.  He was asked to remit Service Tax and GST for the above policy and accordingly he paid the amount towards the same.  The maturity amount was not credited in his account without any valid reasons even after the due date. 

9.       The contention of the appellants is that they have not received the premium from January 2017 onwards and unless they receive it, they are not liable to pay the maturity amount. It is for the employee to follow up with his employer regarding the timely remittance of the premium. It is true that the insurer can pay the maturity value only after getting all the instalments of premium.  However, they should inform the insured as and when there is a default in payment of premium. However, there is no record to show that any communication was sent to the insured regarding non receipt of premium instalments. Also, it is the usual practice of the insurers to send advance vouchers at least a couple of months before the maturity date. This was not done by the appellants.

10.     Appellants confirmed having the received the pending premium on 29.12.2017.  However, we observe that no action for payment of maturity amount is seen taken by them for more than six months even after getting the full premium. The amount was approved only on 9.7.2018 and the sanction memo was marked as Ext A 2. In view of the above we concur with the finding of the District Commission that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants to the extent that default in premium remittance was not communicated to the insured and that and no action for payment of maturity amount was taken for so many months after getting the full premium on 29.12.2017.

11.     Maturity value of Rs 70,400/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) (which includes sum assured plus bonus) was paid to the respondent/complainant on 27.07.2018 as evidenced by the additional document produced by the appellants. Thus the eligible amount was paid during the pendency of the complaint. The final hearing of the complaint was on 01.10.2018. The opposite parties produced the voucher dated 26.07.2018 for
Rs.70,400/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) (Exhibit B2) before the District Commission. The complainant did not inform the Commission about receipt of the amount on 27.07.2018. The appellants also failed to submit about settlement of maturity claim under the policy. As the respondent has already received the maturity amount during the pendency of the complaint, the order of the District Commission to pay the maturity value with bonus is infructuous and is liable to be set aside.

12.     The maturity value with bonus amounting to Rs.70,400/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) was due for payment on 16.08.2017 whereas it was paid only on 26.07.2018.  Hence, the respondent/complainant is entitled to get interest @ 8% for the delayed period from 16.08.2017 to 26.07.2018. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the compensation and costs awarded by the District Commission are just and reasonable and no interference is required in this regard. No costs.

          13.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 05.10.2018 in C.C.No.131/2017 of the District Commission is modified with the following directions:

1. The order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) plus bonus with 8% interest from 16.08.2017 till date of realisation is set aside.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay interest @8 % for the maturity amount of Rs.70,400/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand Four Hundred only) from 16.08.2017 to 26.07.2018 to the complainant.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and
   Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs to the complainant.

          The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards statutory deposit at the time of filing the appeal.  The respondent/complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount due to him from the said amount on filing proper application and the balance amount may be returned to the appellants on proper acknowledgement. 

SL