Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/75/2017

Srinibas Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Post Master , And Others - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                              C.C.Case No.75 of 2017

Srinibas Nayak, aged about 32 years

S/o Kumar Nayak,                                                                                                           

At/Po: Mathakaragola,

P.S: Kamakhyanagar,

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                    …..........Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) Sub-Post Master, Mathakaragola,

2) Superintendents of Post Office,

    Dhenkanal Division, Dhenkanal                        …..........Opp. Parties

 

Present:  Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                  Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  A.K.Rout & Associates

                  For the Opp. Parties Deepak Prasad Pattnaik & Associates

Date of hearing: 15.11.2017

Date of  order:  24.11.2017

                                                                ORDER

Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by  the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.

                1) Very briefly, the case of the petitioner stated are that   he is the Policy Holder vide Policy No. ROR-EA-59060 obtained from the Opp. Parties since 29.10.2007 which is to be matured on 29.10.2036.  The O.Ps on receipt of the first premium issued the pass book to the complainant to pay the premium regularly with the local post office and to get acknowledgement.  Since the beginning the complainant has been claiming the original policy documents from the O.Ps but the local post master at Mathakaragola Sub-Post Office assured the complainant that the policy bond will be sent later on.  The complainant also sent a written application to the Superintendent of Post Office, Dhenkanal requesting for issuance of the original bond at the cost of the petitioner since 29.3.2016.   The O.P.No.2 advised the complainant to submit a personal bond of indemnity with all other requisite.  Accordingly, the complainant submitted indemnity bond on 19.7.2016 to the O.P.No.2 and again O.P. No.2 demanded the Salary certificate of the surety which were also supplied to the O.P.No.2.  Despite application and compliance of all formalities alongwith payment of required fees, the Opp. Parties slept over the grievance of the complainant.  The complainant has been paying the premiums regularly since August-2016.  The Opp. Parties are demanding extra charge on the premium of Rs. 255/- and it also came to the knowledge of the petitioner that   he is going to get nothing from the O.P in absence of Policy Bond.  On 5.1.2017 the complainant served a legal notice.  Despite all efforts made by the complainant, the O.Ps are very much negligent and did not take any steps for issuance of the Policy bond and lastly on 9.1.2017 the O.Ps sent a letter to the complainant to provide further proof of witnesses and to pay Rs. 50/- which amounts to deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the O.Ps to   supply the original policy bond and   not to charge any extra amount towards the premium. Besides, the complainant claims compensation and cost of the litigation of Rs. 35,000/-. The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.  

2)       The Opp. Parties   appeared and filed their written version.   It is stated in the version that Sri Shrinibas Nayak has taken one rural postal life insurance Policy bearing Policy No. R-OR-EA-59060 for a sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 29.10.2007   and the date of maturity of the Policy is 29.10.2036.  The complainant had applied for duplicate policy bond on 13.5.2016 submitting one indemnity bond, copy of front page premium receipt book, copies of salary slips & Id proofs of the sureties.  It is further stated that on receipt of the documents, the copy of the salary slips, Id proofs of BSF LC. Pramod Coumar Swain and 13^th Bn. Const. Golak Bihari Nayak were sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi South Division for verification of genuineness from the issuing authority vide Dhenkanal H.O letter No. OLI/RPLI/duplicate/PRB/16 dated 18.7.2016. The SSPOs, New Delhi South Division informed vide his letter No. PLI/Vin/PLI-Duplicate PRB-2016-17 dated 23.9.2016 that the salary slips could not be verified as the battalions refused to provide any kind of information on the matter.   Therefore, the complainant was asked to submit copy of self-attested Id proofs of witness Saroj Kumar Nayak, Saroj Ku. Swain, Debadatta Khuntia, Umakanta Das, Prasanta Maharana, and Arjun Ku. Nayak.  Besides, the complainant was also asked to deposit Rs. 50/- at any Mc.Camish Post Office/CPC PLI, Dhenkanal HO, Dhenkanal towards charges of duplicate policy bond issue and to supply fresh salary slips (2 nos) of Govt. Employees of nearby locality with their self-attested copy of Id proofs.  On receipt of the pleader notice   inquiry was made and it was ascertained from the Postmaster, Dhenkanal H.O that duplicate policy bond could not be issued to the complainant in respect of RPL Policy No. R-OR-EA-59060 due to non-submission of the required documents as called for by the Post Master, Dhenkanal H.O vide his letter NO. PLI CPC/ Corr dated 9.1.2017.  Accordingly it was intimated to the advocate of the complainant on 11.1.2017.  The petitioner has not submitted the requisite documents as called for from him for which the duplicate policy bond could not be issued.  It is further stated that the policy bond will be issued soon after receipt of the required documents and the requisite fee from the petitioner.  Accordingly, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties and the case is liable to be dismissed.

                 3) On the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties as discussed above the only point needs our consideration as to whether the Opp. Parties are in deficiency in service? Admittedly,  Shri Shrinibas Nayak has taken one rural postal life insurance Policy bearing Policy No. R-OR-EA-59060 for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 29.10.2007.  It is not disputed that the complainant is a consumer.  The sole allegation of the complainant as advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that   after receipt of the first premium, the O.P the Opp. Party sent pass book to the petitioner to pay the premium regularly with the local post office.  But the Opp. Parties have not issued the Policy bond in original for which he has been approaching the Opp. Parties for issuance of the Policy bond which has not been issued.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.  The learned Additional Standing Govt.  Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opp. Parties pleaded that the original policy bond has already been sent to the complainant in due course of official transaction and since the issuance of the policy bond is of the year 2007, it is not possible to trace out on which date it was sent.  However, the complainant in the instant case has applied for the duplicate policy bond on 13.5.2016 submitting the indemnity bond, copy of front page of premium receipt book, copies of salary slips & Id proofs of the sureties.  The complainant in the personal bond of Indemnity submitted to the Opp. Parties has clearly mentioned that the policy bond has been lost and is not forthcoming.  Therefore, the question of non-issuance of the original policy bond by the Opp. Parties does not arise.  Now next question arises as to whether the O.Ps are in deficiency in service by not issuing the duplicate policy bond on application by the complainant.  The Opp. Parties have categorically admitted that the complainant has applied for the duplicate policy bond on 13.5.2016 submitting the required documents i.e. indemnity bond, copy of front page of premium receipt book, copies of salalry slips & Id proofs of the sureties.  On receipt of the documents the copy of the salary slips, Id proofs of BSF LC. Pramod Kumar Swain and 13^th BN Const. Golak Bihari Nayak were sent to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, New Delhi South Division for verification of genuineness from the issuing authority vide Dhenkanal H.O letter No. PLI/RPLI/duplicate/PRB/16 dated 18.7.2016.  Since the salary slips could not be verified  as the battalions refused to provide any kind of information on the matter, the complainant was requested to submit  certain documents as per their letter dated 9.1.2017 which has not been complied with.  Further in response to the Pleaders notice the Opp. Parties also intimated vide letter dated 11.1.2017 to furnish the required documents.  But instead of complying the requirements, the complainant has filed the present case alleging deficiency in service.  The learned counsel on behalf of the Opp. Parties pleaded that unless the required documents as called for i.e. copy of self-attested Id Proofs of Witness Saroja Kumar Nayak, Saroj Ku. Swain, Debadatta Khuntia, Umakanta Das, Prasanta Maharana and Arjun Ku Naayak, deposit of Rs. 50/- at any Mc.Camish Post Office/CPC PLI, Dhenkanal HO, Dhenkanal towards charges of duplicate policy bond issue and to supply fresh salary slips (2 nos) of Govt. Employee of nearby locality with their self-attested copy of Id proofs, the duplicate policy bond cannot be issued.   Accordingly, it is submitted to direct the complainant to furnish the above documents so as to enable the Opp. Parties to issue the duplicate policy bond and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.  On perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents available on record we do not find any  material  which would go to show that the complainant has complied the requirements  as per the letter dated 9.1.2017 and 11.1.2017 of the Opp. Parties.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opp. Parties are not in deficiency in service for non-issuance of the duplicate policy bond.  Besides, we are of the view that the complainant is at liberty to furnish all the required documents as per letter dated 9.1.2017 and 11.1.2017 of the Opp. Parties and on receipt of the required documents the Opp. Parties shall issue the duplicate policy bond in due course of their official transaction.  Hence ordered.

                                                                                ORDER

                The complaint is accordingly disposed of with the observations made in the preceding paragraphs on contest.  The complainant is at liberty to comply the requirements as per letter dated 9.1.2017 and 11.1.2017 of the O.Ps and furnish the copy of Self-attested Id Proofs of Witness saroj Kumar Nayak, Saroj Ku. Swain, Debadatta Khuntia, Umakanta Das, Prasanta Maharana, Arjun Ku. Nayak, deposit Rs. 50/- at any McCamish Post Office/CPC PLI Dhenkanal HO, Dhenkanal towards charges of duplicate policy bond issue and to supply fresh salary slips (2 Nos) of Govt. Employee of nearby locality with their self-attested copy of Id proofs.  The Opp. Parties are also directed to issue the duplicate policy bond within one month from the date of receipt of the required documents from the complainant.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.

 

(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy)                                           (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)

                Member                                                                        President