Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/23/2013

Uday Prakash Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master, Post Office Chapra, Postal Life Insurance & Others - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

Complain Case No. – 23/2013

1. Uday Prakash Singh, S/o- Sri Lal Bahadur Singh, Vill+P.O – Chapra, Dharampur Yad, P.S - Katti, District- Muzaffarpur…….….…..... complainants 

V/s

1. Post Master, Post Office Chapra, Postal Life Insurance.
2. Post Master General, Uttar Gaushala Road, Muzafffarpur.  …………..….Opposite Party.

Date of order- 02-09-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                        President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

      Member

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

For Complainants - In Person.

For Opposite party - Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate

 

Order

           

The complainant has filed his claim for Rs. 99,999/- against the O.P. including the insured amount Rs. 80,000/-, physical, mental and Social harassment Rs. 10,000/- and convenience cost Rs. 9999/-.

The case of the complainant appears from his complaint petition            dt. 12-02-2013 without affidavit alleged there in that he has taken policy of postal life insurance on his birthday dt. 22-02-2012 in the post office of O.P. 1 and after one week he has received receipt of his installment Rs. 2620/- from the postmaster, rest paper demand by him were not supplied by the post office and no satisfactory answer was given to him. He was threatened that if he will create any hinderence his premium will be refunded. The said fact is of Jan 2013, when he threatened the O.P. that he will not seat silence he will raised the matter before the consumer forum, vigilance court and press and he will get them punished, as such the O.P. frequently send the papers on 05-02-2013 through a messenger who has firstly abuses him. He has put the questions before the O.P. that what is insurance, what for it will be taken, if he would not alive what yield goes to his family members and what is the value of his money? If he will uneducated and what will happen? How the faith will arises over the post office? Why any person will entering this public scheme? And why they take the policy when he has deposited premium of this policy before one year and in his living after one year his insurance has not been made and have extended his one premium for one year, it comes under misappropriation of money and cheating with him. As such he has filed this case with aforesaid claim. He has filed the copy of first premium policy receipt dt. 22-02-2012 for Rs. 2620/-, policy paper having no clear vision regarding several facts, copy of letter of correspondence copy of information regarding RTI from which it appears that the O.P. has answered that his policy was accepted on 06-02-2012 and the papers regarding the policy available to him on 05-02-2012 which are annexure 1-4.

 In this case O.P. has filed his W.S. dt. 15-07-2013 admitting the facts of application of complainant applied to purchase the PLI policy on 22-02-2012 and submitted that due to technical defects in proposal of PLI policy remained unaccepted and when the position was made clear, it was accepted on 05-02-2013 for value of Rs. 80,000/- with provisional premium of Rs. 2620/- accepted on 22-02-2012 was adjusted. The acceptance of policy is not inconsistent with any provisions of rules of PLI and on this scores the O.P. has prayed to dismiss the case.

Considering the facts and circumstances, material available with the record and illegations of respective parties, it is admittedly clear that the complainant has applied for purchase of policy of PLI on dt. 22-02-2012 and he was handed aver premium receipt for Rs. 2620/- on the same day i.e, 22-02-2012 and his policy was accepted on 06-02-2013 under the technical defects. What was the technical defect the O.P. has not made it clear which is on him to clarify as such it is apparent before us that about one year the complainant was harassed physically & mentally. Although his first premium deposited on 22-02-2012 was adjusted on 06-02-2013 as such apparently there is deficiency in service arises against the O.P. for which the complainant was harassed. Regarding the allegation of complainant that of he would not alive after his deposited of first premium it can’t be calculated. In our believe the said postal receipt can take its legal value and what law providers the survivor of complainant can get it benefited. Only the complainant is entitle to get the harassment arises for deficiency in service made by the post office as such we are of constrained view that only to that extent the complainant is found able to prove his case.

Accordingly the case of the complainant is partly allowed and the O.P. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5000/-, for his deficiency in service to the complainant within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant is get entitled to recover by the process of law.        

Member                                                                                  President