BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 72 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.4.2015
Date of Decision : 05.5.2016
Om Parkash, aged 48 years son of Sh.Manohar Lal, r/o village Khairekan, tehsil and distt. Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Post Master, Main Post Office, Sirsa.
2. Superintendent Post Office, Hisar Division, Hisar.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA……….……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.S.Gill, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Arora, SDI, for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that on 1.3.2004 the complainant had purchased a policy bearing no. RHY HQ GY 67231 under RPLI scheme for sum of Rs 1,00,000/ Date of its maturity was 1st March, 2014 The complainant made the monthly premium amount regularly. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was entitled to survival benefits Ist 20% i.e. Rs.20,000/ after a period of four years, 2nd 20% after seven years and 60% on maturity plus Bonus earned . But, the said benefits were not given to the complainant by the opposite parties within time despite repeated requests made by him. The opposite parties sanctioned the amount Rs.1,28,200/- vide letter dt. 13.6.2014 but interest on the survival benefits has not been given to him. Hence, the present complaint for payment of interest amount 12% per annum i.e. on Ist survival benefit from the year 2008 on second survival benefit from the year 2011 and on maturity amount from March 2014 to December 2014 with up to date interest besides damages for harassment, humiliation, mental agony etc. and also for litigation expenses.
2. The opposite parties have filed their reply by pleading that the complainant has not exhausted all the departmental channels available to him. However, they have admitted purchasing of RPLI policy from them by the complainant, its monthly premium, survival benefits and maturity date as 1.3.2014. According to them, the first survival benefit was due to the complainant on 1.3.2008, but he applied for the same on 7.5.2010 and thus, the same was sanctioned on 19.5.2010. The copy of sanction memo was received by the complainant as admitted by him vide his application dt. 27.9.2014 addressed to CPMG HR Circle Ambala, but he never visited the post office to receive the sanctioned amount. The 2nd survival benefit was due on 1.3.2011 and the same was sanctioned by the opposite parties alongwith the maturity amount vide sanction memo dt. 13.6.2014. For the said benefit also, he never applied and sanctioned amount was refused by the complainant deliberately. As there is no delay on the part of the opposite parties in making payment to the complainant, therefore, he is not entitled to any interest.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record C1 his own supporting affidavit Ex.C2 copy of policy; Ex.C3-legal notice; Ex.C4 and Ex.C5-postal receipts; Mark CA and CB-copies of sanction orders; Ex.CC-letter written to the complainant by Op no.2 regarding maturity amount; whereas the opposite parties have tendered Ex.R1 and Ex.R10-affidavit of D.R.Suthar, Op no.2 Ex.R2 and Ex.R11-copy of policy; Ex.R3- copy of application given by complainant for payment; Ex.R4-sanction order of survival benefit dt. 19.5.2010; Ex.R5-request given by complainant to Chief Post Master Ambala dt. 27.9.2014 for maturity amount; Ex.R6-sanction order; Ex.R7-e.mail; Ex.R8-copy of letter written by op no.1 to op no.2; Ex.R9-legal notice.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and SDI appeared on behalf of opposite parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that due to late payment of first and second instalment of survival benefits, he suffered a lot and faced difficulty in the marriage of his daughter. He further argued that postal department was negligent in not processing his case in time and not sanctioning due payment to him at their own.
6. On the other hand, SDI appeared on behalf of opposite parties argued that the complainant could have applied himself for survival benefits when it became due. The department sanctioned these amounts just after the application of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
7. After going through the record carefully and after hearing learned counsel for complainant and SDI Sh.Rajesh Arora on behalf of opposite parties, we are of the considered view that the postal department was deficient in its services because when the survival benefits were due to the complainant, then it was the duty of the department to pay the same in time. Moreover, if any application was also required from the complainant, the department could inform the complainant for submitting the same, but the opposite parties have not done so. Thus, it is clear that the opposite parties have committed negligence in performing their duties.
8. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed and the postal department i.e. opposite parties are directed to pay interest 9% per annum to the complainant from the date when the first survival benefit was due i.e. on 1.3.2008 and also when the second survival benefit was due ie. On 1.3.2011 till the date first instalment was paid and second instalment was paid. The complainant is also hereby awarded compensation Rs.10,000/ for harassment, mental tension etc. and litigation expenses Rs.2200/ Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:05/05/2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
