Orissa

Jajapur

CC/44/2016

Kalandi Ch. Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master,Dhanipur Branch Post Office. - Opp.Party(s)

Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra

19 May 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                              Dated the 19th day of May,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.44 of 2016

Kalandi ch.Das  S/O Late Kusasan Das

At/P.O.Dhanipur P.S.Mangalpur

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.Post Master,Dhanipur Branch post office ,AT.Dhanipur,P.S.Mangalpur,

   Dist. Jajpur.

2.Post Master, Mangalpur, At/P.O. Mangalpur ,Dist. Jajpur .

3.Post Master ,Jajpur Head post office, At/P.O/Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                           Sri P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                            Sri A.K. Das, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   19.05.2017.

MISS SMITA  RAY, LADY   MEMBER .

 

The complainant has come with this complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. since the O.ps have not paid  the surrendered  money of the postal R.P.L.I policy.

            The fact of the dispute in short is that as per complaint  petition the complainant had a policy  under the O.Ps bearing policy No. RPLI R.0R/BN/EA/3374 .That on dt.5.11.99 the complainant opened the above policy  RPLI bearing No.R.0R/BN/EA/3374 under Dhanibpur Branch post office and the complainant had deposited monthly premium at the rate of Rs.70/ per month and accordingly he had deposited Rs.2736/- .Thereafter the complainant did not want to continue this policy for which, he  surrendered the policy before the O.P.1 on dt .13.04.15 but  it is pertinent to mention here that till the date of filing of the present dispute the O.Ps neither returned the surrender money nor has any correspondence regarding  the policy. The petitioner has come to the office of the O.Ps near about 100 times spending his valuable and workable times and loss of income.

            It is stated by the complainant that one letter came from the Jajpur H.O addressing  the petitioner regarding the surrender of the above policy wherein  it is  stated that the petitioner has not submitted the original bond .Thereafter the petitioner enquired about the original bond  policy at the office of the post master, Dhanipur branch post office who stated that he had already sent the original bond to the post master Mangalpur post office. Further , the sub-post master, Mangalpur has written in his  letter i.e  “ application for surrender of the above  policy along with ER book and original bond has been  sent to DVI office under this office P.L.No.544976725 dt.13.04.2015” and the same letter was deposited to the post master ,Jajpur H.O  who has not taken  any effective step to return the surrender money. Accordingly the petitioner finding no alternative, has  taken the  shelter in  this Fora with the prayer to direct the O.P to return  Rs.2736/  with interest  along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental agony and deficiency in  service.

            After appearance the O.Ps filed their written version  through their learned  advocate taking following stand :

That the  complaint petition as laid down before this Forum is not maintainable and  liable to be dismissed. The O.P stated in the written version that the complainant had insured himself under Rural Postal Life Insurance Scheme of Department of posts having policy No.R-0R-BN-CWA-3374. The complainant has stated that he has  submitted application for surrender along with policy bond and premium receipt book on 13.04.2015 which was received  on 16.04.15. But only the premium receipt book and application was received at his end which was sent to Deputy Divisional Manager(PLI) O/O the Chief Post master General ,Bhubaneswar on 22.04.15 . After that, Deputy Divisional Manager(PLI) vide circle office letter No.LI/RPLI/Misc-surrender/15-16 dt.05.10.15 had returned the premium receipt Book to the Insured  stating that since the policy bond was not submitted by the Insured, the surrender could not be sanctioned. After receipt of this letter, the insured  had again submitted the premium Receipt Book to this office stating that he had submitted the original policy bond earlier on 12.10.15. As per letter No.91 dt.12.01.15 issued by Sub-post master, Mangalpur S.O addressing  to Superintendent of post offices, Cuttack North Division it clearly indicates that only the premium receipt Book was sent as enclosure and not the policy bond. It is further stated by  the O.P that due to migration of the PLI software to Mc  Camish, the surrender was being sanctioned at Head office, in this case Jajpur H.O ,so the documents i.e application and premium receipt Book were sent to Jajpur H.O on 23.11.2015.  As per Rules 55 of the Insurance Fund Rules 2011, the Insurance  is required to submit the indemnity Bond ( if the policy is lost along with the premium receipt Book) for immediate payment of the surrender value. As the  original bond was not available, Jajpur H.O has intimated the complainant vide letter dt.10.01.17 to submit the indemnity bond for issue of duplicate policy bond for further processing of the case. After several reminders, the insured  remained silent. Therefore, it is evident to establish that the complainant has not submitted full-fledged documents for processing of the case.

            Considering the whole facts of the case and even providing relief to the complainant instructions have been given to Jajpur H.O for issuing a duplicate policy bond and take necessary steps for sanction of the surrender value.

            In view of the above facts it is clear , that the complainant had not submitted the original policy bond in the absence of which the sanction of surrender value was not possible. This fact was also intimated to the complainant by the Deputy Divisional Manager(PLI) O/O the Chief Post Master General ,Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, the post master ,Jajpur H.O also intimated several times to submit a indemnity bond on the basis of which the surrender value would have been sanctioned but the complainant paid no heed to the advice of Jajpur H.O. Therefore, there was no intention of willful delay or harassment to the complainant. Hence, the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record filed by  both the parties in details.

1.Admittedly it is undisputed fact that the complainant was the policy holder of the postal RPLI No.R.0R-BN-EA-3374 and due to financial stringency the complaint did not want to continue the policy and subsequently surrender the policy before the O.P.no.1 Dhanipur branch post office for realization of surrender value .

2.That the complainant alleged that he has deposited  all the documents along with the original policy bond before the O.P.no .1 on 13.04.15  for realization of the surrender money. On the other hand the O.Ps vide their letter No.PM/JJP/CRO/RPLI/R-04-BN-EA-3374 has  asked the complainant to deposit the original policy bond .

3.That when we verified  the documents in details filed from both the sides it is observed  that as per  letter of the post master Jajpur H.O asking to the complainant regarding submission  of original bond of the above policy is arbitrary since as per  the letter of the sub-post master, Mangalpur on dt.12.1.16 . It is evident that “Application for surrender of above said policy along with PR Book and original bond was sent to DVL office under this office RL No.RO 544976725 on dt.13.04.15.”

4.In the peculiar circumstances the O.P.no.3  has written  a letter to the complainant on dt.10.01.17 which was filed from the side of the O.P as Annexture -6 in that letter the O.P.no.3 advised the complainant that    “you may please apply in the format of enclosed indemnity bond along with two sureties, witness, ID proof of yourself along with the surety and witness and send the same to this office for early settlement of your case  .”

            The next point for consideration as to whether ,  there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps for providing surrender money of above policy in time to the complainant .In this point it is our considered view that the O.P.no. 2  himself has admitted in the letter of O.P.no.3 that the original policy bond has been sent to O.P.no.3 on dt. 13.04.15  and the subsequently  taken by O.P.no.3 in the event of missing of original policy bond that is  at  belated stage is nothing but  after receipt  of notice of present dispute because who debarred the O.P.no.3 to take prompt action when the missing of bond come to the  knowledge of O.P.no.3 . This action of O.Ps reflected  as above is  gross deficiency of service, for which the complainant suffered  from mental agony and financial loss.

            Post and  Telegraph Department is a  public utility  service concern . The bureaucratic  red-tepasim should not have been crept into a Department which is involved in the service of general public in day to day basis. The instant case is an example of functioning of postal Telegraph Department at the grass route level most specifically in the rural area, so the service provider should be more vigilant to the woes of the general public. After hearing the argument,  there is no doubt  that the O.P  was negligent in performing the duty in time which resulted in not providing the prompt service to the petitioner, so this is the clear case of deficiency of service.

Hence this order

            For the forgoing observations the case of the petitioner is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. The O.Ps are directed to pay the surrender value of the postal RPLI policy after completion of the due formalities by the petitioner . The O.Ps also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand ) to the complainant within one  month after receipt of this order in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004-CTJ-605-S.C= 2004(2) CLT-628-S.C( Ghaziabad Development Authority Vrs. Balbir Singh) , failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same as per  law.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 19th day of May,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.