PER:
Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the son of complainant namely Prabhjot Singh opened post office account bearing no.3297452279 with the opposite party No.1 and opened Atal Pension Yojna (APY) bearing PRAN No. 500124723996 with the opposite party No.1 and started making the payment through the account. Copy of account statement of Prabhjot Singh is Ex.C1. Unfortunately the Prabhjot Singh died on 31.07.2018, thereafter, being the legal heir/nominee of the Prabhjot Singh, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the death and applied for the death claim under the APY scheme. The opposite party No.1 demanded various documents which were provided by the complainant. The mother of Prabhjot Singh is pre-deceased and the deceased was unmarried at the time of his death as such the complainant is his only legal heir. The opposite party No.2 being the Head Post Office under which the Khadur Sahib Post Office filed claim of the complainant to opposite party No.3 and sent all the required documents to opposite party No.3 for releasing the amount of claim vide letter dated 19.01.2019. Copy of letter is Ex.C2. Since then number of times the complainant requested for releasing the amount and even reminders through Senior Account Officer (SB), Punjab Circle Chandigarh were sent to the Senior Post Master, Sansad Marg HPO, New Delhi as well as to the opposite party No.3. Copies of reminders are Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and copy of death certificate of Prabhjot Singh is Ex.C7 and letter dated 20.1.20 letter dated 20.1.2020 is Ex. C-8. Till date the claim has not been settled by the opposite parties. The complainant has received a letter dated 20.01.2020 vide which the claim of the complainant has been rejected on the ground that the claim has not been processed through the Nodal Officer, which is not tenable and the complainant approached the post office in which the scheme was availed and it was the duty of opposite party No.1 to lodge the claim as per provisions of the scheme. If there is any default that is on the part of opposite parties as all the requisite documents were provided to the opposite parties. Now after one year the claim has been rejected on flimsy grounds, which is not tenable under the law and moreover, the complainant is not at default at any point of time and the opposite parties are bound to release the death claim of the deceased Prabhjot Singh which is amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- as per scheme. The affidavit of complainant is Ex.CW1/A . The complainant prayed as under:-
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to release Rs.8,50,000/- the amount covered under Atal Pension Yojna (APY) Scheme along with other benefits accrued on the scheme along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a in favour of complainant
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- may be awarded to the complainant.
- The cost of the complaint may also be awarded to the complainant.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, since Atal Pension Yojna (APY) is a product of Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority of the Government of India and Post Office is working as agency for promotion of products and as such, in this view of the matter, the Nodal Officer of Atal Pension Yojna, Sansad Marg, Head Post Office, New Delhi is a necessary and proper party and the claimant was advised by the opposite parties to move a fresh claim file to the department with all the relevant documents and thereafter the department is forwarded the same to the nodal office of ATAL Pension Yojna, otherwise, the post office is working as an agency for the promotion of the products only. Thus, the present claim petition is legally not maintainable against the opposite parties in the absence of above said necessary party which has not been impleaded by the complainant and as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed parties. The present complaint is legally not maintainable against the opposite parties as no cause of action accrued against the opposite parties since the post office is working as an agency for promotion of the products., Thus, in these set of circumstances, the present complaint against the opposite parties is legally not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties have unnecessarily been dragged in the present litigation. Prabhjot Singh son of Pritam Singh opened Atal Pension Yojna account bearing Pran No. 5001247239996 at Khadur Sahib Sub Post Office, Tarn Taran whose monthly subscription was deducted from Post Offices Saving account No. 3297452279 standing at Khadur Sahib Post Office. Pritam Singh is the nominee. The documents were sent to APY Claim processing Cell, Lower, Parel, Mumbai-400013 by Tarn Taran Head Post Office vide registered letter No. RP812068523IN dated 21.1.2019. Reminders were issued to the APY Claim processing Centre, Mumbai by Tarn Taran HO and Sr. AO (SB), Chandigarh to settle the case on priority basis. Atal Pension Yojna is a product of Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority of the Government of India and Post Office is working as an agency for promotion of products. In this case, the claim is to be sanctioned/settled by the APY claim Processing Cell, Mumbai. The claim has been rejected by the APY Claim Processing Centre, Mumbai on the grounds that it was not processed through Nodal Office (Sansad Marg Head Post Office, New Delhi. As such, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder necessary parties, since Atal Pension of Yojna (APY) is a product of Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority of the Government of India and Post Office is working as agency for promotion of products and the Nodal Officer of Atal Pension Yojna, Sansad Marg, Head Post office, New Delhi and accordingly, the claimant was advised by the opposite parties to move a fresh claim file to the department with all the relevant documents and thereafter the department is forwarded the same to the nodal office of ATAL Pension Yojna, otherwise, the post office is working as an agency for the promotion of the products only. As per the scheme, if APY account holder dies before the age of 60, the nominee will get the amount contributed up to the death of the holder and return thereof. Said amount is also to be paid by the APY Claim Processing Cell, Mumbai and accordingly, the claimant was advised by the opposite parties to move a fresh claim file to the department with all the relevant documents and thereafter, the department is rewarded the same to the nodal officer ATAL Pension Yojna, otherwise, the post office working as an agency for the promotion of the products only. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties shave placed on record affidavit Ex. OP1/A, letter dated 19.1.2019 Ex. OP-1, Letter Reminder Ex. OP-2, Letter Reminder Ex. OP-3, Letter dated 16.4.2019 Ex. OP-4, Letter dated 6.6.2019 Ex. OP-5, Letter dated 6.1.2020 Ex. OP-6, Letter dated 13.1.2020 Ex. OP-7, Letter dated 20.1.2020 Ex. OP-8, Copy of Broacher Ex. OP-9, Gazette of India Ex. OP-10.
3 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant is not consumer within the meaning of the definition of expression Consumer given in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended from time to time. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. As a subscriber under National Pension System a New pension scheme which is available for the Govt. Employees, Central and State Autonomous bodies, for all citizens and corporate. This subscriber is one under the ATAL PENSION YOJNA (APY). The appropriate authority to redress his grievance, if any has to be the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority PFRDA which is the regulator of NPS drawing its mandate through the PFRDA ACT 2013. Thus PFRDA is the regulatory body constituted under Special Act to govern the operations of NPS to exclusion of any Civil Court. As per Section 14 of the PFRDA Act 2013, it has to set up a grievance redressal mechanism under the PFRDA Act by way of grievance redressal mechanism regulations providing for such redressal of subscriber grievances. Accordingly in discharge of its functions as regulator, providing for an appropriate mechanism of grievance redressal, The PFRDA redressal of subscriber grievance Regulations 2015 as amended from time to time till 2018 have been notified by the regulator. These regulations have provided for grievance redressal mechanism exclusively under PFRDA jurisdiction. As per section 35 and 37 of the PFRDA Act 2013, none of the courts are entitled to entertain any dispute or grievance under the Act. The contents of the complaint reveal that the matter pertains to withdrawal claim of the APY subscriber Shri Prabhjot Singh - PRAN -500124723996. Upon verification of our records it is seen that the said PRAN is registered with CRA under the Atal Pension Yojna and the same is associated with APY service provider (APY_SP) Department of Post Tarn Taran which is already made party to the compliant. CRA has a limited role as a Central Record Keeping Agency under the PFRDA ACT and is one of the intermediaries appointed by PFRDA which role is registration of subscribers, issuance of PRAN cards, and maintaining records of subscribers as per the details provided by the nodal offices/ points of Service- Service providers which are also intermediaries registered with PFRDA under the Act. The APY SP is required to perform the functions related to subscriber customer service and resolution of grievances. Since the first point of contact and place from where the contributions are made, registrations are received and requests for withdrawals/ disbursements are made. As regards the disbursement of the pension wealth of NPS subscriber, the same is governed by the Exits and Withdrawals under NPS regulations 2015 as amended from time to time and which provides for an effective mechanism in the interest of the subscribers under NPS and conditions for withdrawal and exit including the purpose frequency at limits for withdrawals from the account also conditions subject to which subscriber shall exit from NPS and purchase annuity thereupon. The issue at hand, is precisely the one, where neither the complainant nor his point of presence-service provider have abided by the prescribed procedures. Both have filed to act as per the PERDA prescribed procedure. PERDA (Exits and Withdrawals under NPS) regulations were notified in May 2018. These regulations aim at providing an effective mechanism in the interest of the subscribers, upon exit or withdrawal from NPS, including the purpose, frequency and limits for withdrawals from individual pension account, as also the conditions, subject to which a subscriber shall exit from NPS and purchase an annuity thereupon. For the Purpose of APY withdrawals the PFRDA has notified the procedures and processes vide its various department circulars issued to the banks and Department of Posts which act as the service providers to the APY subscribers. Thus as per the as per the stipulated procedure for enabling withdrawal from the PRAN of the deceased subscriber, the claimant legal heir nominee is required to submit the duly filled form i.e. Atal Pension Yojana (APY) account closure form to the associated APY SP of the deceased subscriber which will be forwarded to the Head Office of APY SP for onward submission to this answering party i.e. CRA. Upon receipt of the withdrawal request CRA will process the request in the CRA system and eligible withdrawal amount will be credited to the Claimant's nominees saving bank account (as provided in the withdrawal form). It is a requirement by PERDA that the closure request has to be submitted from the head office of the mapped APY- SP registered in the CRA system providing a complete set of documents. It is observed from contents of the complaint and verification of our records based on the bank account No. (3297452279) provided in the aforesaid complaint, it is observed that Shri Prabhjot Singh is registered with CRA under Atal Pension Yojana (APY) and has been allotted PRAN 5500124723996 on June 18, 2016. Currently, the PRAN is associated with APY Service Provider (APY-SP) Department of Posts Ministry of Comm. and IT, Financial Services Division Bhavan Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001. In this case, Physical APY-Death Withdrawal request was received by In this case, we had received APY withdrawal claim for PRAN 500124723996 vide letter dated January 19, 2019 (received at CRA on February 1, 2019) and subsequently vide letter dated July 9, 2019 (received at CRA on July 16, 2019) however the same was rejected as Covering Letter is not received from associated APY-SP i.e. Department of Posts Ministry of Comm. and IT, Financial Services Division, Dak Bhavan Sansad Marg, New Delhi, 110001 of deceased (which has not been impleaded as a necessary party in this complaint) ie the physical withdrawal request in case of death was not received by CRA from the mapped APY-SP Branch as required under the PFRDA specified procedure (PFRDA being the regulatory body for NPS). The rejection reason was also intimated to concerned APY-SP OP No. 1 vide our email dated July 31, 2019 and subsequently on December 19, 2019. Also the rejection reason was intimated to the Shri Pritam Singh (complainant) vide their letter dated January 20, 2020. In view of the above, the withdrawal claim will be processed upon receipt of letter from the associated APY-SP either in physical form or email. CRA i.e. the OP no 3, be able to process the claim and forward it to the NPS Trust for settlement only if the claims are raised by the mapped APY SP as mentioned above in the manner and procedure as specified by PFRDA. The case does not hold against us as there is no deficiency of service on our part at all. This matter pertains to withdrawal of the amount by the nominee. The complainant is relying on the notification dated August 17, 2015 (clause 14.1) issued by Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Financial Services (attached as Annexure 3/2), upon completion of 60 years, the subscribers will submit the request to the associated bank for drawing the guaranteed minimum monthly pension or higher monthly pension, if investments returns are higher than the guaranteed returns embedded in APY The same amount of monthly pension amount is payable to spouse (default nominee) upon death of subscriber. Nominee will eligible for return of pension wealth (as per Subscribers' Contribution Chart Annexure 1) accumulated till age 60 of the subscriber upon death of both the subscribers and spouse (default nominee) as per the table provided in the aforesaid Notification. However, in this case, nominee is not eligible for return of pension wealth due to non-completion of 60 years by Subscriber Late Shri Prabhjot Singh on his death (Date of Birth 5- Feb-1992), who was registered under APY (PRAN 500124723996) on June 18, 2016 hence not eligible for receipt of any pension. The eligibility of the subscriber to receive pension is only upon completion of the superannuation age of 60. That is the requirement under the Atal Pension Yojana (pension plan). The nominee in this case is eligible to receive the amount lying in the pension account as on the date of the withdrawal processing. The total contribution/ balance lying in the aforesaid PRAN account till Dec 09, 2020 was Rs.10726.00. All regulations, Circulars and forms related to withdrawal from NPS and APY are available online on PFRDA website www.pfrda.org.in and also the CRA website www.npscra.nsdl.co.in. A relevant extract of circulars and scheme details and other references will be provided at appropriate stage. The OP no 3 Craves leave to refer and rely on the same. And file any other additional documents as may be required at a later stage, The OP no 3 has vide its email dated 31/7/2019 has intimated the APY withdrawal cases (Physical) with their status (Rejected/Processed/Fund transfer) as of July 22,2019. The concerned office forwarding the claims was requested to check the same and provide necessary confirmation/ documents for the pending cases and for Rejected cases, service provider was informed to process those cases through online mode and till date there is no steps taken by the complainant or his associated APY service provider neither physical nor online request in the prescribed format has been received from the associated APY SP of the deceased subscriber Also PFRDA has been informed by NSDL about this case. From the correspondence it is clear that there is no eligibility to receive the pension by the nominee/legal heir however 100% withdrawal can be allowed only on the submission of claim documents in the prescribed format. The complainant is not eligible for the amounts claimed under the referred notification of government of India with regard to the APY pension scheme. Since, the complainant has not taken up the matter with the relevant APY Service Provider and hence without following the due process as prescribed by PFRDA the regulator of NPS the complainant has raised a frivolous complainant of deficiency in service. Unless the Complainant and his Service Provider complies with its obligations and prescribed requirements for withdrawal / formalities of claim, it cannot be expected that the claim will be settled by the NPS trust in favour of nominee/legal heir. There is a specified procedure for verification of claim, scrutiny and disbursement is done by the NPS trust only after the relevant intermediaries raise and process the claims of subscribers after following due authentication processes. Since there was no authorisation from the first point of contact intermediary/ nodal office HO as per requirements/conditions specified by PFRDA, it cannot expected from the OP No 3 to process a request which was never raised in the CRA system. CRA has followed the due procedure in settlement of the claim of the complainant. The associated APY SP has not even been impleaded as a necessary party to the claim. The OP No. 1 & 2 need to obtain the covering letter/request letter from the associated APY SP and submit to the NPS claim processing cell to be able forward the request to NPS Trust for disbursement of the 100% withdrawal amount in the favour of the nominee (complainant Pritam Singh). CRA performs its distinguished role of record keeping as per the CRA regulations and has been appointed by PFRDA to maintain the records of the account of all the NPS subscribers, CRA will be able to provide the forwarding details to the NPS trust for final settlement of claim / disbursement of eligible amounts out of the pension wealth only when the PFRDA prescribed process is compiled by the complainant and his APY SP and the request captured in the CRA System. The complaint is false, frivolous and malafide. The complainant has willfully made false allegations in the complaint with a view to make wrongful gains by misleading this Commission. Accordingly, the complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. The complaint is not maintainable against this Opp. Party No. 3 as there is neither cause of action against this opposite Party No.3 nor any deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party No.3. As a subscriber under National Pension System the appropriate authority to redress his grievance if any, has to be the pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority PFRDA which is the regulator of NPS drawing is mandate through the PFRDA ACT PFRDA is the regulatory body constituted under Special Act to govern the NPS to exclusion of any Civil Court. It is pertinent to mention that as per section 14 of the PFRDA Act. It has to set up a grievance redressal mechanism under the PFRDA Act by way of grievance redressal mechanism regulations providing for such redressal of subscriber grievances. Accordingly in discharge of its functions as regulator, providing for an appropriate mechanism of grievance redressal, it has issued The pfrda redressal of subscriber grievance regulations 2015 as amended from time to time. As per section 35 and 37 of the PFRDA Act 2013, none of the courts are entitled to entertain any dispute or grievance under the Act. complainant does not qualify the requirements to be termed as a consumer as defined in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act hence cannot meet the criteria of complainants as prescribed in section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. This opposite party has raised its defence by stating that complaint is bad in law because NPS is governed by the PFRDA act 2013 and Regulations thereunder. Thus the complaint if any will lie to PFRDA under the PFRDA Redressal of Subscriber Grievances Regulations 2015 (as amended from time to time) and not any other law The PFRDA Act being a special enactment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the subscribers under NPS regime, Section 35 of the PFRDA Act explicitly states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act of any rules or Populations made thereunder, save on a complaint made by the Authority. Also section 37 of the PRDA Act is very clear that NO civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter for which an adjudicating officer appointed under the Act to determine and no injunction shall by granted by any court or other authority in respect of an action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. Thus PFRDA under the section 14 and section 28 of the Act has the power to decide and penalize with respect to any complaint of subscribers covered under NPS. The subscriber has an option to approach the ombudsman who is appointed under the subscriber grievance redressal regulations 2018, who can decide such issues, this matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Consumer forums or does not form a issue under consumer laws. Hence must be dismissed, primarily because the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act nor can the grievance under PFRDA Act be tried under any other jurisdiction other than what is prescribed in the PFRDA Act 2013 and its allied regulations. Since the Complainant has not approached PFRDA/CRA through the proper redressal mechanism provided to the NPS subscriber and hence complaint should be dismissed. Purther from the roles and responsibilities of the aggregator APY SP it is crystal clear that the duty and responsibility of the aggregator i.e. the Respondent No 1& 2 to cater to the needs of the subscriber who is registered under them for APY scheme of the Government. The contents and facts of the complaint reveal that the matter pertains to primarily the failure of the OP NO. 1& 2 to comply with the PFRDA stipulated procedure for withdrawal and resolution of grievance/ providing correct information to the legal heir/nominee of the deceased subscriber. As per the PFRDA stipulated process, the closure letter has to be received from the associated APY SP as mentioned above. The same details of the mapped office is also available on the transaction statement submitted pertaining to the said PRAN account of the deceased APY subscriber Since OP No 1& 2 is already made party to the case and associated /mapped office has not been impleaded, no role of CRA is attributable for this issues faced by the complainant, CRA (1.e. this opposite party) and hence it is not a necessary party nor can any deficiency of service be claimed against us. All these responsibilities are a part of POS obligations which have been stipulated by the regulator PFRDA and as such CRA has no role in this issue of closure of bank account and complying with the exit conditions For Exit conditions under the Atal Pension Yojana the Bank having the account is responsible for Providing Account Closure Form (Death Case) Spouse to Continue under APY, in cases of death of existing APY subscribers and Informing subscriber to the APY subscribers to close SB account once APY funds out of exit are credited to the account. He could have also raised his grievance with PFRDA who is the regulator and has a special jurisdiction to decide upon such grievances of subscribers and could have directed the relevant intermediary to comply with the due procedure. Our reply email dated 31.7.2019 and all the correspondence with, Department of Post and complainant mentioned herein above in written statement is clear proof that CRA has discharged its distinguished roles as defined under the PFRDA Act. The OP No. 3(NSDL e-Governance Infrastructure Limited formerly known as National Securities Depository Ltd. "for short NSDL) is a public limited company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956. National Pension System (NPS), regulated by PFRDA, was launched on the 1st of January, 2004, with the prime objective of providing retirement income to all citizens of India. NPS aims to institute pension reforms and inculcate a habit of saving for retirement among the citizens. Initially, the NPS was introduced for the new government recruits other than the armed forces recruits. However, from May 2009, it has been made available to all the citizens of India inclusive of the workers in the unorganized sector on a voluntary basis. PFRDA, the regulatory body for NPS, has put in place the infrastructure required for the administration of NPS. For servicing of NPS subscribers various intermediaries such as Central Record keeping Agency (CRA), Pension Fund Managers, Points of Presence (PoP's) for distribution of the product, Trustee Bank Custodian and NPS Trust have been appointed by PFRDA. NPS offers a simple and affordable facility of retirement savings, which is made available to the subscribers by allotting them a unique and portable Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) upon registration. Since PRAN is portable, subscriber can open an NPS account with authorized branches of service providers called 'Points of Presence' (POPs), appointed by PFRDA. The Gol has therefore announced a new scheme called Atal Pension Yojana (APY)1 in 2015-16 budget. The APY is focussed on all citizens in the unorganized sector. The scheme is administered by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) through NPS architecture. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record statement of transaction Ex. OP3/1, Notification Ex. OP3/2.
4 The complainant has filed the replication to the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and denied the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
6 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the son of complainant namely Prabhjot Singh opened post office account bearing No.3297452279 with the opposite party No.1 and opened Atal Pension Yojna (APY) bearing PRAN No. 500124723996 with the opposite party No.1 and started making the payment through the account. He placed on record account statement of Prabhjot Singh is Ex.C1. He further contended that Prabhjot Singh died on 31.07.2018, thereafter, being the legal heir/nominee of the Prabhjot Singh, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the death and applied for the death claim under the APY scheme. The opposite party No.1 demanded various documents which were provided by the complainant. The mother of Prabhjot Singh is pre-deceased and the deceased was unmarried at the time of his death as such the complainant is his only legal heir. The opposite party No.2 being the Head Post Office under which the Khadur Sahib Post Office filed claim of the complainant to opposite party No.3 and sent all the required documents to opposite party No.3 for releasing the amount of claim vide letter dated 19.01.2019. He placed on record copy of letter Ex.C2. Since then number of times the complainant requested for releasing the amount and even reminders through Senior Account Officer (SB), Punjab Circle Chandigarh were sent to the Senior Post Master, Sansad Marg HPO, New Delhi as well as to the opposite party No.3. He placed on record copies of reminders Ex.C3, Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and copy of death certificate of Prabhjot Singh Ex.C7 and letter dated 20.1.20, letter dated 20.1.2020 Ex. C-8. Till date the claim has not been settled by the opposite parties. The complainant has received a letter dated 20.01.2020 vide which the claim of the complainant has been rejected on the ground that the claim has not been processed through the Nodal Officer, which is not tenable and the complainant approached the post office in which the scheme was availed and it was the duty of opposite party No.1 to lodge the claim as per provisions of the scheme. He also contended that the opposite parties are bound to release the death claim of the deceased Prabhjot Singh which is amounting to Rs.8,50,000/- as per scheme.
7 On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, since Atal Pension Yojna (APY) is a product of Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority of the Government of India and Post Office is working as agency for promotion of products and as such, in this view of the matter, the Nodal Officer of Atal Pension Yojna, Sansad Marg, Head Post Office, New Delhi is a necessary and proper party. He also contended that the claimant was advised by the opposite parties to move a fresh claim file to the department with all the relevant documents and thereafter the department is forwarded the same to the nodal office of ATAL Pension Yojna, otherwise, the post office is working as an agency for the promotion of the products only. He further contended that the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the opposite parties as no cause of action accrued against the opposite parties since the post office is working as an agency for promotion of the products. He further contended that the opposite parties have unnecessarily been dragged in the present litigation. Prabhjot Singh son of Pritam Singh opened Atal Pension Yojna account bearing Pran No. 5001247239996 at Khadur Sahib Sub Post Office, Tarn Taran whose monthly subscription was deducted from Post Offices Saving account No. 3297452279 standing at Khadur Sahib Post Office. Pritam Singh is the nominee. He further contended that the documents were sent to APY Claim processing Cell, Lower, Parel, Mumbai-400013 by Tarn Taran Head Post Office vide registered letter No. RP812068523IN dated 21.1.2019. Reminders were issued to the APY Claim processing Centre, Mumbai by Tarn Taran HO and Sr. AO (SB), Chandigarh to settle the case on priority basis. He further contended that Atal Pension Yojna is a product of Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority of the Government of India and Post Office is working as an agency for promotion of products. In this case, the claim is to be sanctioned/settled by the APY claim Processing Cell, Mumbai. As per the scheme, if APY account holder dies before the age of 60, the nominee will get the amount contributed up to the death of the holder and return thereof. Said amount is also to be paid by the APY Claim Processing Cell, Mumbai and accordingly, the claimant was advised by the opposite parties to move a fresh claim file to the department with all the relevant documents and thereafter, the department is rewarded the same to the nodal officer ATAL Pension Yojna, otherwise, the post office working as an agency for the promotion of the products only. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties have placed on record one document vide which an amount of Rs. 13,785.92/- has been released in the account of Prabhjot Singh and argued that the above said payment has been made by the opposite parties to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the scheme. Both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the scheme/policy. The terms and conditions of the scheme have to be strictly construed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India vs. Garg Sons International 2013 (1) SCALE 410 (SC) held in Para Nos.8 to 11 as under:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that while construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled, that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed in order to determine the extent of the liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the Court should always be to interpret the words used in the contract in the manner that will best express the intention of the parties. (Vide: M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 567).
9. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the Insurance Company must also be read strictly. The contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonize the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon. (Vide : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan AIR 1999 SC 3252; Polymat India P. Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 286; M/s. Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Oil & Natural Gas Company, AIR 2010 SC 3400; and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. M/s. Dewan Chand Ram Saran AIR 2012 SC 2829).
10. In Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 2493, it was held: “An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. The endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in rewriting the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. (See also: Sikka Papers Limited v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2834).”
11. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement.”
8 In view of the circumstances mentioned above, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission
21.09.2023
