Haryana

StateCommission

A/513/2016

POST MASTER - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

NAMIT KUMAR

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      513 of 2016

Date of Institution:      06.06.2016

Date of Decision :       18.07.2016

 

1.      Post Master, Main Post Office, Sirsa.

2.      Superintendent of Post Office, Hisar Division, Hisar.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Om Parkash s/o Sh. Manohar Lal, Resident of Village Khairekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate for appellants.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated May 5^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2015.

2.      Om Parkash-Complainant/respondent, purchased a Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy (Annexure A-2), on March 1^st, 2004 for a sum assured Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of ten years. The date of maturity of the policy was March 1^st, 2014. As per terms of the policy, 20% of the sum assured was payable on completion of four years and another 20% was payable on further completion of three years and the remaining 60% was payable on maturity of the policy.

3.      Indisputably, 20% of the sum assured on completion of first four years and 20% payable after next three years, was not paid in time and it was paid in 2010.  Complaint being filed, the District Forum vide impugned order directed the opposite parties/appellants to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the delayed period on the sum payable to the complainant; Rs.10,000/- for harassment, mental tension and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses.

4.      The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties is that 20% of the sum assured payable on completion of four years and another 20% of the sum assured was optional claim. In support, reference was made to the policy schedule the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-

“1.     On the survival of life assured surviving to the stipulated dates as under:

a)      On the life assured surviving upto the end of 4 years from the date of commencement of risk -20% of the sum assured.

b)      On the life assured surviving upto the end of 7 years from the date of commencement of risk-20% of the sum assured.

c)      On the life assured surviving upto the date of maturity-60% of the sum assured together with accrued bonus.”

5.      As is being contended by the learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties, the policy does not state that 20% amount payable on completion of four years was optional. The District Forum has thus rightly awarded interest for the delayed period of payment to the complainant. Thus, no case for interference is made out.

6.      Hence the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,775/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 18.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL