| First Appeal No. A/1372/2023 | | ( Date of Filing : 20 Jul 2023 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/06/2023 in Case No. CC/914/2017 of District Bangalore 4th Additional) |
| | | | 1. B R NARAYANAPPA | | S/O of Late Rangappa, Aged About 66 Years, R/a NO.2/1, 5TH B MAIN, NEAR BANK OF BARODA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BENGALURU 560079 | | BENGALURU URBAN | | KARNATAKA |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. SENIOR POSTMASTER | | RAJAJINAGAR HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE 560 010 | | BENGALURU URBAN | | KARNATAKA | | 2. SENIOR POST MASTER | | RAJAJINAGAR HEAD OFFICE, BENGALURU 560010 | | BENGALURU URBAN | | KARNATAKA | | 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS | | DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, BENGALURU WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 086 | | BENGALURU URBAN | | KARNATAKA |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Dtd.10.06.2024 A/1372/2023 O R D E R BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER. - This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.20.06.2023 passed in CC/914/2017 on the file of 4th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
- The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.
- Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether the impugned order dtd.20.06.2023 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?
- At the very outset, we have to make mention of the fact that, this Commission on 27.05.2022 in A/1111/2019, while allowing the appeal of Complainant/Appellant herein remanded back the matter to reconsider the case afresh as observed in the order affording opportunity to both parties and decide the case. However, after remand of the case, the District Commission once again proceeded to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation inventing yet another ground to dismiss the complaint case.
- Let us examine the nature of the case of the Complainant. The Complainant had availed Postal Life Insurance Policy from the OPs vide endowment policy bearing no.KT505248-CS for a sum assured at Rs.1,50,000/- for 60 months on 12.02.2011 and the policy will be expires on 12.12.2016. The Complainant had paid monthly premium of Rs.2,693/-. According to him he had paid 34 months premium which is short of two months premium for 36 months as stipulated in the policy. In this regard, Complainant has stated in his complaint, as he was under the impression, 36 months premium were paid, since he had lost his pass book at the relevant time could not make out definitely about payment of premiums. However, after the date of maturity period, when he approached OPs, they have informed, policy is lapsed and all the benefits of the policy have been forfeited as per POLI rules.
- In view of the above such situation it would be appropriate to make mention of the date of expiry or the date of maturity which would be with effect from 12.12.2016 and the Complainant has approached the Consumer Forum on 03.05.2017, which could be said complaint filed by complainant is well within two years as provided U/s.27A of CPA 1986 and even as provided U/s.69 of CPA 2019 which was not at all considered by the District Commission before passing impugned order is not appreciated at all. Further to be noted herein that while remanding the complaint we never said to examine on the point of limitation, yet, DCDRC proceed to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation is nothing but perverse, capricious, contrary to the facts and law is liable to be set aside.
- In our view the District Commission at least could have taken into consideration of the premium amount paid for 34 months. The Complainant is aged about 68 years at the time of raising complaint and is a senior citizen hails from middle class family and the District Commission could have considered for refund of surrender value paid by him. In such view of the matter, it would be just and proper to remand back the matter again to decide afresh.
- Further, we are of the view no purpose would be served to remand back the matter to the same DCDRC but to meet ends of justice it would be appropriate to transfer the complaint case to another DCDRC. Hence, we proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the order dtd.20.06.2023 passed in CC/914/2017 with a direction to readmit the complaint and decide the case on merits affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.
- It is hereby order CC/914/2017 pending on the file of 4th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban is hereby withdrawn and transferred to 3rd Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban to decide on merits.
- Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS* | |
