The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant was a policyholder of respondent and joined in a 10 year Welfare Endowment Scheme conducted by the respondent vide No.E-1655294/973. The payment due date of the scheme was on 7.7.03. On 25.6.03 the father of complainant telephoned to the respondent and wanted to issue discharge form and voucher. The respondent agreed to send the same on that day itself. The brother of complainant also requested for the discharge form and voucher. On 16.7.03 the complainant received a letter in post card sent by a stranger stating that the policy became due and in order to refund the amount the complainant had to reach the St. Thomas College. The transfer of certificate particulars to a 3^rd party is unfair. Subsequently on 26.7.03 and 1.8.03 also the complainant received post cards of the same demand. At last the complainant approached the agent who had enrolled her in the scheme. The date stated in the discharge form is 7.7.03. There is delay in issuing discharge form. A cheque for an amount of Rs.30,435/- accepted by the complainant only on 16.9.03. This is belated payment. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter is as follows: The complaint is not maintainable on the very fact that the complainant has executed discharge form cum voucher dated 7.7.03 for Rs.30,435/- in full and final settlement of all dues under the certificate. Usually discharge form cum voucher will be sent to the complainant before the date of maturity by ordinary post. Since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced, a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. On receipt of the duplicate discharge form cum voucher duly filled up and signed by the complainant cheque for Rs.30,435/- drawn on the Union Bank of India, Thrissur Branch was sent to the complainant. The cheque amount was encashed by the complainant. Having executed discharge form and accepted the amount without any protest the complainant is not entitled to claim any more amount under the said certificate. There has been a concluded contact. The complaint is a reproduction of the lawyer notice dated 19.11.03. A reply had been sent showing the real facts. There are several field workers for the Company to get doorstep service to the certificate holders. They may have called the certificate holders to any convenient place. There is no deficiency in service. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and R1 to R4 and the deposition of RW1.

 

            5. The points: The case of complainant is that she being the holder of 10 year Welfare Endowment Scheme of respondent entitled to get the amount within a reasonable time after the due date. As admitted by both the payment due date was 7.7.03. On 25.6.03 her father telephoned the respondent and requested to send discharge form and voucher. But it was not done. Her brother also requested on behalf of her. Still it was not send by the respondent. While so she had accepted Ext.P1 series post cards demanding to reach her different places at Thrissur. At last she handed over the certificate to the person who had enrolled her in the scheme. On 16.9.03 only she has received the cheque for an amount of Rs.30,435/-. So this complaint has filed.

 

            7. In the counter the respondent stated that since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced, a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. On receipt of the duplicate discharge form cum voucher duly filled up and signed by the complainant a cheque for Rs.30,435/- was sent to the complainant on 17.9.03. Delay if at all in issuing the cheque was caused on account of the delay in submitting the discharge form by the complainant. 

 

            8. The complaint is filed to get interest for the belated payment and also for compensation.   As admitted by both the complainant was a holder of 10 years Welfare Endowment Scheme conducted by the respondent. As per the scheme the complainant will get on maturity Rs.30,435/-. The due date of her certificate was on 7.7.03. According to her before that on 25.6.03 her father telephoned the respondent and requested for discharge form and voucher. She also stated that her brother the nominee, contacted the respondent and requested to issue discharge form. But the discharge form cum voucher were not accepted by the complainant. According to her the delay of payment was only because of the delay in issuing discharge form and voucher. She has produced Ext. P2 series the copy of the discharge form and voucher.   In that the date of signature put by the complainant shows as 8.9.03.   The date of discharge form shows as 7.7.03. It is also stated in the discharge form that the due date as 7.7.03. 
So it can be say that the discharge form was made on 7.7.03 itself or before that.  Ext. R1 is the original discharge form produced by the respondent. There is no date of issuance of the form. There is endorsement made by the respondent as 16.9.03. It does not mean that the form was issued on 16.9.03. Moreover the signature put by the complainant was on 8.9.03. The date stated below the certificate number is 7.7.03. There is no mention of date in the column prescribed in the form just below the reference number. 

 

            9. The definite case of complainant is that there was delay in issuing discharge form cum voucher. According to the respondent the delay caused on account of the delay in submitting the discharge form by the complainant. She states that on 25.6.03 her father and after that her brother requested for discharge form cum voucher. But there is no evidence brought by the complainant to establish these contacts. RW1 deposed that they have despatch register and also stated that they have no register for ordinary posts. He further states that he deposes only under presumptions and he did not see any document. In the counter the respondent admired their services as social welfare activities and absence of keeping despatch registers shows their silly mind in handling the deposit schemes. According to them on maturity the complainant is entitled for Rs.30,435/-. During cross-examination he stated that the maturity amount will be paid within 10 days after the due date.   So it does not mean that after 10 days of the due date the certificate holders are entitled for the maturity value only. So also the complainant is entitled for interest claimed.

 

            10. In the counter the respondent stated that since it was told that the original discharge form was not received by the complainant or was misplaced a duplicate one was issued on 16.9.03. The complainant has no such case. Her definite case is that there was delay in issuing duplicate discharge form. If that be so as stated by the respondent it is their duty to show the intimation from complainant about the loss of original discharge form or misplacement. The respondent had to submit the dispatch register and prove their case. The respondent miserably failed to establish their case. RW1 even stated that the book containing the name of certificate holders is an open book. So anybody can peruse it. If such leniency is taking, it was their bounden duty to keep despatch registers and prove their case. He also admitted during cross examination that there is no entry of date of issuance of Ext. R1 discharge form. Since there was request on the part of complainant, the respondent had to enter the date of issuance in Ext. R1. According to us 

there was no such request from complainant as stated by the respondent as original discharge form was lost or misplaced. So it can easily understand that this is a false story developed by the respondent. The issuance of discharge certificate in time was not done by the respondent. So the complainant is entitled for interest as prayed in the complaint. 

 

            11. The complainant has produced Ext. P1 series post cards to show that she had accepted letters from people those who are totally strangers to her. But it was justified by the respondent by saying that the field workers may have called the certificate holders to any convenient place for helping and solving the problems of the certificate holders. In the letters “convenient places” noted are Science Block of St. Thomas College, Thrissur and near the Fish Market etc. The policy holders who are in need of obtaining maturity amount no need to go the places specified by the agents of respondent. This is a bad practice and cannot be encouraged. But the respondent encouraged these practices as the means of promoting their business. So the complainant is entitled for compensation also.

 

            12. In the result, the complaint is allowed as prayed with cost Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within one month.