Orissa

Cuttak

CC/82/2019

Arun Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Postmaster ,ChandniChowk Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

D P Mohapatra

23 Feb 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C No.82/2019

Arun Kumar Sahu,

S/O: Sadananda Sahu,

Plot No.1C/73,Sector-10,P.O/P.S:Markat Nagar(Phase-II),

C.D.A,Cuttack-753014..                                       .... Complainant.

  

     Vrs.

 

1.        Post Master,Chandnichowk Head Post Office,

      At/P.O:Chandnichowk,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,

Pin-751001.

 

2.        Post Master General,

       Odisha Circle,Bhubaneswar,

Vidhan SAbha Chowk,Bhubaneswar,

Dist:Khurda,Pin-751001.

 

3.        Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,

       Cuttack City Division,Cuttack,Pin-753001.

 

4.       Directorate of Postal Life Insurance,

      Chanakyapuri,PO: Complex,

1^st floor,New Delhi,Pin-110021.                                  ....OPP.Parties.

 

Present:                       Smt. Sarmistha Nath, President(I/C)

                        Sri  L.N.Das Choudhury,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.07.2019

Date of Order:  23.02.2021

 

For the complainant          :     Mr. D.P.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp.Parties           :              Exparte.

 

Sri  L.N.Das Choudhury,Member.

                                                                                                   

The complainant has approached this commission praying therein for payment of compensation, expenses, damages to the tune of Rs.99, 023/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand and Twenty Three only) mentioned thereby under the schedule of claim for the injustice suffered by him due to the Opposite parties, further claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with exemplary cost. Though notice was issued to the Opposite parties and they chose to file their appearance in the said matter but did not prefer to file their written version/statement and were as such set ex-parte.

Brief facts of the case:-

1. That the complainant on dated.24.04.2018 availed a Postal Life Insurance Policy with a term spanning over 18 years from the Opposite parties vide PLI Policy No.0000002063031 towards a sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) against a monthly premium payment of Rs.496/-(Rupees Four Hundred and Ninety Six only) due for maturity on dated.20.04.2036. The complainant thereby started paying the said premiums and as such paid two premiums worth Rs.496/-(Rupees Four Hundred and Ninety Six only) each on dated.20.04.2018 and dated.08.05.2018 respectively. It is alleged by the complainant that while he further visited the Opposite party No.1’s branch for making payment of the premium towards the month of June-2018, despite a number of visits on various occasions and standing in the queue for every such visit, the Opposite party No.1 denied accepting his payment of the said premium. Further, pursuant to this irregularity the complainant preferred to contact the PLI Directorate (Opposite party No.4) over telephone but his such efforts were in vain due to non-response from the said authority following which he was constrained to inform the said matter further to the Opposite parties over email on dated.05.06.2018 and 29.06.2018 to which a reply was received on dated.30.06.2018, particularly on the last day of the month, wherein the Opposite parties issued an advisory to the complainant to deposit the premium on the very day so as to avoid penalty. Further in pursuance to the above advisory when the complainant visited the Opposite party for payment of premium, he was demanded Rs.519/- (Rupees Five Hundred and Nineteen only) towards the premium for the month of June-2018 which was though paid by the complainant so as to avoid penalty but with a protest. It is further contended and alleged by the complainant that though the grace period for payment of premium extends up to the last working day of the month but he was demanded an extra amount worth Rs.23/- (Rupees Twenty Three only) and which was collected from him for no fault of his.

2. That the complainant having paid the extra amount, again brought this discrepancy to the notice of the Opposite parties on several occasions through various representations over telephone, email and even by paying personal visits to the Opposite parties to which the Opposite parties allegedly attended his grievance in a casual, unjustified and untenable manner thereby giving rise to the complainant’s claim of negligence and deficiency of service by the Opposite parties and also thereby subjecting the complainant to harassment and injustice. Further as stated, the complainant made a final representation to the opposite parties on dated.25.07.2018 to which he was replied to by the Opposite parties on dated.30.07.2018 received by the complainant on dated.03.08.2018 in which the Manager, PLI CPC, Chandinichowk H.O. Cuttack admitted to the charging of an extra amount and also further directed the opposite Party No.3 to refund the said extra amount to the complainant. The complainant further claims that he has been subjected to grave injustice at the hands of the Opposite parties arising out of illegal excess amount charged thereby causing mental harassment and agony, professional loss and like, hence the complaint petition.

3. That in response to the complaint petition filed by the complainant before this commission, the Opposite parties though chose to appear in the said complaint case but never preferred to file any written version and as such were set ex-parte on dated.27.11.2019.

4. Hence considering the above facts and circumstances and having perused the annexed documents it is adequately established that the complainant has made diligent efforts in rendering his part of duty in paying the premiums towards the said Postal Life Insurance account but such attempt to pay was abruptly turned down by the Opposite parties on many occasions and in consequence of which the complainant was rather charged an extra amount particularly when such latches were not attributable to any extent on the part of the complainant, more particularly when the said amount was paid on the last day of the month, as admissible to be under the allowed grace period, under the instructions and advice issued by the Opposite parties. Though the Opposite parties chose to file their appearance in the said matter but least preferred to file any written version constraining and compelling this commission to set them ex-parte having adequately allowed them time on various occasions and under these circumstances it can safely be construed as admission of the Opposite parties to the averments/claims in the complaint petition which is further established in the reply annexed under Annexure-4 of the said complaint petition. Though the complaint petition is silent on the further course of action of the Opposite parties following the letter issued under Annexure-4 but this commission is bent upon considering the fact that such a misappropriation of the amount by the opposite parties be safely construed as deficiency in service arising out of the inaction of the Opposite parties in addressing the grievances of the complainant and considering the plea of technical glitch taken by the Opposite parties under Annexure-4, such discrepancy should have been reported and rectified by the Opposite parties voluntarily and out of their own motion, if at all the said plea is considered to be true. On the contrary though the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite parties by the complainant, instead of addressing the issue, they rather chose to linger the matter by their inaction to the disadvantage of the complainant subjecting him to further harassment and inconvenience, which sufficiently persuades and compels this Commission to hold the Opposite parties deficient in service.

ORDER

In our considered opinion, the Opposite parties being jointly and severally liable are hence directed to refund the extra amount charged worth Rs.23/- (Rupees Twenty Three only) and further compensate the complainant adequately to the tune of Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand only) towards the mental agony, harassment and associated damages caused and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of the present order failing which the amounts shall carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realisation.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 23^rdday of February,2021 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                   Sri L.N.Das Choudhury

                                                                                                                                               Member

                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                        Smt. Sarmistha Nath

                                                                                                                                              President I/ C