The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, V/S Smt. Lalitham - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 146/06

Smt. Lalitham - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, - Opp.Party(s)

Y Srikanth

31 May 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 146/06

Smt. Lalitham						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, The Divisional Controllar (DC) The Post Master The Post Master (EFE)						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Smt. Lalitham 2. Smt. Lalitham

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, 2. The Divisional Controllar (DC) 3. The Post Master 4. The Post Master (EFE) 5. The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, 6. The Divisional Controllar (DC) 7. The Post Master 8. The Post Master (EFE) 9. The Assistant Manager (PLI) Chief Post Master, 10. The Divisional Controllar (DC) 11. The Post Master 12. The Post Master (EFE)

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Y Srikanth 2. Y Srikanth

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. DGP. 2. M D. Sulthan 3. D.G.P 4. D.G.P. 5. DGP. 6. M D. Sulthan 7. D.G.P 8. D.G.P. 9. DGP. 10. M D. Sulthan 11. D.G.P 12. D.G.P.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 146/06. THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY 2008. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. ***** COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Lalithamma W/o. Late Ambalayya Kambar, Age: Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Phool Bhavi village, Post: Honnalli via Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI) O/o Chief Post Master, General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore. 2. The Post Master, Post Office (PLI) Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. 3. The Post Master, EFE branch, (PLI), Head Post Office, Raichur. 4. The Divisional Controller (D.C) N.E.K.S.R.T.C. Raichur Division, Raichur. CLAIM :- For direction to Respondents to pay the PLI insured sum of Rs. One Lakh with interest damages and cost. Date of institution :- 27-10-06. Notice served :- 30-11-06. Date of disposal :- 31-05-08. Complainant represented by Sri. Y.Srikanth, Advocate. Respondent No 1 to 3 represented by Sri. D.G.P. Respondent No-4 represented by Sri. M.D.Sultan, Advocate. ----- This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Lalithamma against the four Respondents- (1) Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI) Office of Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore (2) Post Master Post Office (PLI) Lingasugur, District Raichur (3) Post Master EFE Branch (PLI) Head Post Office, Raichur and (4) Divisional Controller NEKRTC (DC) Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is the legally wedded wife of late Ambalayya S/o. Hanumanthappa who was having a Post Life Insurance Policy No. KT-179285-US which was accepted on 11-01-02. Her husband policyholder had paid the premiums regularly and he died on 03-04-05 due to circumstance beyond his control and due to reasons of his health grounds. He had been admitted in the hospital and he was under treatment in the hospital and could not pay premium of policy from July 2004 to April 2005. The complainant being his wife and nominee under the said policy has filed an application claiming the policy amount by furnishing the required documents. But the Respondent NO-1 Assistant Divisional Manager PLI Bangalore has written a letter to the complainant stating that the policy is lapsed due to non-payment of premiums for the period of July 2004 to April 2005 which falls before the completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy. This letter of Respondent No-1 is wrong as from the date of acceptance of policy i.e, 11-01-02 to the date of death of the policyholder i.e, 03-04-05 the period is 38 months 23 days. So according to Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules the statement of the claim in-respect of policies where death take place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy and non-payment of premium arrived due to circumstance beyond his control means the legal heirs are entitled for policy amount after deduction un paid premiums along with cost. The period of remission shall be allowed in-respect of policies where premium remained un-paid beyond the period of grace permitted under Rule 28. Actually according to Rule 28 the authority is not given grace period for making payment of premium. The Postal authority has not given further period of remission in-respect of further payment of un-paid premium beyond the period of grace under Rule 28. The death of the policyholder occurred within (36) months as such according to Rule the legal heir of the insurant is entitled for the claim after deduction of un-paid premium with interest. Rule 39(2) (5) and Rule 40 is very clear in favour of the complainant. The policyholder has not paid premium due to non-payment of salary and also medical treatment etc., the amount of premium is deducted from the salary of deceased through the employer i.e, Divisional Controller NEKRTC pertaining to Post Office Insurance Policy of the deceased Ambalayya. The complainant submitted the copy of application dt. 18-09-06 issued by Divisional Manager, KSRTC in-respect of absent from the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 of her deceased husband which is material and authenticate that her husband was absent from duties for the period due to his ill health and treatment. The husband of the complainant working as driver in Lingasugur Depot. He was under treatment from 17-03-05 to 03-04-05 the Government Hospital Lingasugur and Dr. Shivabasappa attended the deceased and issued medical certificates which has been produced. Her husband took treatment from 01-07-04 to 20-08-04 in Primary Health Center Bilagi. He also got treatment from 06-06-04 to 25-06-04 in Vasavi Clinic Lingasgur and also took treatment from Government Hospital Lingasugur from 18-04-02 to 23-10-04. Thereafter her husband took treatment from 24-10-04 to 25-11-04 in Hutti Gold Mines Company Hospital and expired on 03-04-05. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and so the complainant has no other alternate except to file the present complaint due to negligence act and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The complainant suffered mental agony. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondents to pay the PLI insured sum of Rs. One Lakh with interest damages and cost. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through DGP Respondent NO-1 has filed written statement which has been adopted by Respondent NO- 2 & 3. Late Amballayya had taken Postal Life Insurance Policy for Rs. One Lakh as life covering risk from 11-01-02 and when he was required to credit premium of Rs. 495/- every month at Lingasugur Post Office since he had opted for payment of premium in cash. But he has not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards and due to non payment of the premium the policy has become vide in terms of Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. Hence the claim of the complainant was not honoured and it was informed accordingly vide letter PLI/D/10883/D. Claim dt. 29-11-05. The reasons put forth by the complainant that due to non-drawal of pay premium for the months from July 2004 to July 2005 could not be paid by the insurant is not tenable since it is a cash policy and it is the responsibility of the insurant to pay the premium regularly. As the policy is lapsed during the life time of the insurant due to non-payment of the premium for the months June 2004 to April 2005 the complainant is not entitled for any claim. As the insurant had not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards during his life time which was due within a period of (36) months from the date of acceptance the policy is treated as lapsed in terms of Rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules as such the letter No. PLI/D/10883/D claim dt. 29-11-05 issued by Respondent No-1 is quite in-order to the insurance died on 03-04-05 as per death certificate produced by the complainant and the period from the date of acceptance to the date of death is certainly above (36) months and this point is not disputed. But the provisions Rule 39(1) are applicable in-respect of policies where death takes place within (36) months as the date of acceptance. Hence the contention of the complainant is wrong and complaint is not entitled for any claim. The remission period is applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant take place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. In the instant case the insurant died after (36) months. Hence the remission clause is not applicable and the contention of the complainant is not tenable. The provisions of Rule 39(2)v cited by the complainant are applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant occurs within (36) months from the date of acceptance. In the instant case the death of the insurant has occurred after (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy and this fact is not disputed by the Respondent. But the contention of the complainant that provisions of Rule 39(2)v Rule 40 of Post Office Insurance Rules are in her favour is wrong since the death is occurred after (36) months and policy has become void. The insurant had opted for the payment of premium in cash and not through pay recovery hence the contention of the complainant that non-payment of premium was due to non receipt of salary due to medical treatment etc., does not holds good and not tenable. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 3. In-fact there is negligence on the part of the insurant to abide by the terms of the contract which has resulted in lapsing of the policy. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents 1 to 3 have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. Originally this complaint was filed only against Respondents 1 to 3 and after appearance of Respondents 1 to 3 the complainant filed an application for impleading Respondent NO-4 and accordingly Respondent No-4 was impleaded as such who appeared through counsel as under:- It is contended that this Respondent No-4 is neither proper nor necessary party to the complainant. The deceased Ambalayya has not attended to duties and in-view of the same which is not been paid any salary and accordingly the premium could not be deducted and paid to the concerned authorities. The same is not binding of this Respondent any payment has to be made by the holder only and any liability in-respect of the same shall be on the part of the Respondent No- 1 to 3 only. As the deceased has not attended to duties consequently there arises no question of deduction of premium amount and sending the same to the respective person. Further-more there is no liability binding on this Respondent for reimbursement of any of the said premium amount in any manner and accordingly any liability of the payment of policy amount is solely on the part of the other Respondents. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent No-4 as such the complaint against him deserves to be dismissed. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-4 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent with cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant-Lalithamma has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent No-1 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which as RW-1 has been adopted by Respondent No-2 & 3. On behalf of Respondent NO-4 Assistant Superintendent KSRTC Raichur (Shankerlinga) has filed his affidavit as RW-2 and sworn affidavit of B.M. Sundaram I/c Assistant Administrative Officer of NEKRTC Raichur has been filed by way of examination-in-chief as RW-3 and this RW-3 has been cross-examined by the complainant. On behalf of the complainant about (19) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P.19 which include Original Postal Life Insurance Bond at Ex.P-1 got produced by the Respondent 1 to 3 and the order NO. 142/05 dt. 20-05-05 of Divisional Controller NEKRTC Raichur at Ex.P-9 produced by Respondent No-4 has been order on I.A.No-4. On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 (3) documents were got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. On behalf of Respondent No-4 (11) documents were got marked at Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-14. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim under PLI Policy, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the Negative. 2.As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Ambalayya was working as driver in KSRTC at Lingasugur Depot and was having Postal Life Insurance Policy No. KT-179285-US which was accepted on 11-01-02. It is also not in dispute that the complainant-Lalithamma is the widow of Ambalayya and nominee. The Respondents 1 to 3 have contended that the late insurant-Ambalayya had taken PLI policy for Rs. One Lakh on his life covering the risk and he had opted the payment of monthly premium of Rs. 495/- in cash and accordingly the monthly premium was credited at the Lingasugur Post Office and that he has not paid the premium for the of months July 2004 onwards and due to non-payment of premia due, the policy has become void in terms of Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and accordingly the same has been informed to the complainant vide letter No. PLI/D/10883/D.Claims dt. 29-11-05. The reasons put forth by the complainant that due to non-drawal of salary, premium for the months from July 2004 to April 2005 could not be paid by the insurant is not tenable since it is a cash policy and it is responsibility of the insurant to pay the premium regularly. As the policy is lapsed during the life time of the insurant for non-payment of premium from July 2004 to April 2005 the complainant is not entitled for any claims. The Respondents to substantiate their contention have produced Original Policy Bond as called for by the complainant as per I.A. No-3, and the same has been marked as Ex.P-1. This document at Ex.P-1 among other things shows the mode of payment/premium as Cash. The Respondents have also produced copy of Proposal Form of PLI submitted by the late insurant vide Ex.R-1. Copy of letter of the PLI authorities issued to the policyholder regarding acceptance of the policy, at Ex.R-2 and copy of premium Receipt Book in-respect of policy held by late insurant, at Ex.R-3. 8. It is the case of the complainant that the premium amount was paid through salary deductions. The complainant has produced pay-slips for the month of June 2002 at Ex.P-16, for the month of November at Ex.P-17 for the month of December at Ex.P-19, and has also produced a certificate by Depot Manager NEKRTC Lingasugur Depot, certifying that Rs. 495/- (monthly premium) has been deducted in the monthly salary of Ambalayya driver No. 2150 from the month of March 2002 to September 2003 and the same has been remitted in Sub-Post Office Lingasugur vide PLI No. KT-179285-US. Further-more the Respondent NO-4 Divisional Controller (DC) NEKRTC has produced pay-slips for the months from October to December 2003 and January 2004 to June 2004 at Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-12. The pay slips for the month of June, November & December 2002 vide Ex.P-16, Ex.P-17, & Ex.P-19 shows deduction of PLI premium of Rs. 495/- in the salary for these months. There-part the certificate at Ex.P-18 shows that the Depot Manager Lingasugur has certified that the PLI premium of Rs. 495/- having been deducted from the month of March 2002 to September 2003 and the same has been credited in Sub-Post Office Lingasugur. 9. From a combined reading of Ex.P-18 the certificate issued by Depot Manager Lingansugur at Ex.P-18 and from the pay slips at Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-11 issued by Depot Manager Sindhanur, it shows that the monthly PLI premium for the months from March 2002 to September 2003 has been deducted from the salary of late Ambalayya who was then working in NEKRTC Depot at Lingasugur and in-consequences of transfer of late Ambalayya to NEKRTC Depot Sindhanur, the monthly premium having been deducted from the salary of late Ambalayya from November 2003 to May 2004. Except the copy of Premium Receipt Book of the insurant-Ambalayya at Ex.R-3. The Respondents have not produced any Registers or Book regarding receipt of Monthly premium of the concerned insurant from Sub-Post Office Lingasgur and Sub Post Office Sindhanur to show as to from whom they have actually received the monthly premium, since the pay slips shows the deduction of monthly premium by the Pay Drawing Officer of the insurant. Of-course the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 and the Proposal Form at Ex.R-1 which is the out come of the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 shows the mode of payment of premium as by cash meaning thereby payment by insurant and not by salary deduction. But in the instant case the documentary evidence at Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19 especially the certificate of Depot Manager Lingasugur at Ex.P-18 and monthly pay slips issued by Depot Manager Sindhanur for the months from November-2003 to May-2004 vide Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-11 undoubtedly shows the monthly premium of late insurant having been deducted from his salary and the same has been credited by pay disbursing officer. If this is so the mode of payment in cash as mentioned in the proposal form at Ex.R-1 which is the out come of Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 mentioning so, cannot be taken that the mode of payment of premium was by cash. It would be more-so when the proposal form at Ex.R-1 showing the mode of payment of monthly premium in cash and which came to be so mentioned in the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 has not been filled in by the insurant as discussed above. It appears that the insurant was under the impression of deduction of monthly premium from his salary and accordingly it was so done by his pay Disbursing Officer/Depot Manager at Lingasugur and at Sindhanur respectively. Hence by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the mode of payment was in cash merely because it was so mentioned in the Policy Bond, especially when the monthly premium having been accepted by salary deduction by the concerned postal authorities at Lingasugur and Sindhanur. At the cost of repetition the non-production of the Register/Book regarding the receipt of monthly premium is fatal to the Respondent No- 1 to 3. The Register or Book maintained by Sub-Post Office at Lingasugur and/ or at Sindhanur would have been thrown light regarding the actual payment of premium made by the employer of the insurant or in cash by the insurant. 10. We have another document of the Respondents which supports that mode of payment of premium was by salary-deduction. This document is a letter of Principle Chief Post Master General Postal Life Insurance 2nd floor, GPO Building., Bangalore addressed to the complainant-Lalithamma which is produced at Ex.P-12. This letter which is material interalia reads as under: From: To: Principal Chief Post Master General Smt. Lalilthamma W/o. late Postal Life Insurance 2nd Floor, GPO Bldg., Ambalayya, Kambar, at Phool Bangalore-560 001. Bhavi Post Honnalli via Hutti Raichur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. PLI/TC-/391 dtd @ Bg-560 001, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sir, Subject: Settlement of claim in-respect of PLI Policy KT179285-US Held by late Sri/Smt Ambalayya. Recovery Particulars-reg. As per our records, the following period are Non-Credits. Schedules are verified in-respect of the above mentioned insurant. But credits are not found. From To Policy No. Premium 7/04 to 4/05 KT-179285-US Rs. 495. No. reply has been received from the Accounts Officer, KSRTC Lingasugur W/r to this office letter dt. 24-06-05. Kindly intimate whether recovery of premia has been made for the above mentioned period, is so, the details thereon. If not recovered, the reasons may be intimated. The above information is required for speedy settlement of claim preferred by you. .. Please forward the Premia Receipt Book or post office receipts, for verification. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Pr.Chief Post Master General(PLI) Karnataka Circle, Bangalore- 560001. This letter at Ex.P-12 shows that the Postal Authorities had addressed a letter to the Accounts Officer KSRTC Lingasugur Depot dt. 24-06-05 regarding non-payment of premium from July-2004 to April-2005. If the monthly premium was received in cash by the insurant, then there was no need for them to address a letter dt. 24-06-05 to the Accounts Officer KSRTC Lingasugur. This is also a circumstance which also show that the payment of premium was not in cash but it was by salary deduction, Or the Respondents have allowed and treated the mode of payment of premium from salary deduction instead of in cash as mentioned in the policy bond. Consequently when the Respondents have let loosed the insurant in payment of premiums by mode of salary deduction, then they are now estopped from contending against such mode. 11. Now let us consider regarding lapsing of policy as contended by the Respondents. The Respondents 1 to 3 in Para-3 of their written version have contended that insurant has not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards and due to non-payment of premia due the policy has become void in terms of Rule 39(1) Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and the same has been informed to the complainant vide letter dt. 29-11-05. In Para-4 of written version they have further contended that the insurant died on 03-04-05 as per death certificate produced by the complainant and the period from date of acceptance to the date of death is certainly above (36) months. But the provisions Rule 39(1) are applicable in-respect of policies where death takes place within (36) months from the date of acceptance. The remission is applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant takes place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. In the instant case the insurant has died after (36) months hence the remission is not applicable and the contention of the complainant is not tenable. The Letter dt. 29-11-05 issued by Respondents to the complainant is produced at Ex.P-13. This letter which is in the shape of repudiation of the claim of the complainant shows that the policy is lapsed under Rule-39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules due to non-payment of premia for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 which falls before completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. 12. The allegation of non-payment of monthly premium for the period from July-2004 to May-2005 has not been disputed by the complainant. In Para-6 of complaint it is stated that the policyholder has not paid the premium due to non-payment of salary and also due to medical treatment etc., In Para-7 it is averred that as per the letter of Divisional Manager KSRTC dt. 18-09-06 in-respect of absent to the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 of her husband Ambalayya which is material and authenticate that her husband was absent for duties due to his ill health and treatment. The complainant has produced the letter dt. 18-09-06 at Ex.P-14 of Depot Manager Sindhanur addressed to Divisional Manager PLI Karnataka Circle Bangalore stating that late Ambalayya driver Badge No. 2150 was absent for the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 as per the records maintained in his office. 13. The complainant has produced medical certificates at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-10. From a perusal of medical certificates at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-10 it amply shows that late Ambalayya was suffering from illness and was under medical treatment under different doctors at different places and lastly he was admitted in Government Hospital Lingasgur from 17-03-05 for the illness Pulmonary Tuberculosis and he died on 03-04-05 during the treatment. These medical certificates in-turn shows that he was absent from duty because of his suffering from acute illness. As stated above the letter of Depot Manager Sindhanur at Ex.P-14 dt. 18-09-06 shows that late driver Ambalayya was absent from duty 30-05-04 to 03-04-05. The Respondent No-4 has produced Extract of Leave Account of the Service Register of late driver Ambalayya at Ex.R-13. This Leave Account Extract shows that late Ambalayya/driver was absent from duty for some period with gaps but he was continuously absent from duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05. 14. As per the contention of the Respondents 1 to 3 and their letter dt. 29-11-05 at Ex.P-13 the policy is lapsed under Rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules due to non-payment of premia for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 which falls before completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. 15. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the material placed on record shows that the PLI premium was being deducted from the salary of insurant and it was remitted upto June-2004. The medical certificates go to show that he was suffering from illness and due to which he could not attend to duties and remained absent even his absence has been treated as leave without pay as per Leave Account Extract Ex.R-13. So the non-payment of premium for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 was beyond the control of policyholder and as such as per provisio-1 to Rule 39(1) of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules the Respondents could have settled the claim of the complainant and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. In-support of his arguments he has referred the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. Rule 39(1) & provisio 1 & 2 reads as under:- 39(1) Settlement of claim in respect of policies where death takes place within thirty six months from the date of acceptance of policy:- If, in the case of a policy where death takes place before the completion of thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy bond and where any prmium/premia have become due be not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per rule 28, the policy shall become void and all claims to any benefit in virtue thereof shall cease and all moneys that have been paid in consequence thereof shall be forfeited except in cases mentioned hereafter. i) Provided that, for the purpose of this rule, an insured person is not to be considered as in arrears of premium for any month so long as he had not been able to draw his pay pension, or subsistence allowance during suspension or if the insured person is on leave in India, any leave allowance though due for the month next before it, due to circumstances beyond his control. See also Note 4 to Rule 28 and Note below rule 36. ii) Provided further that the provision (i) above shall not be applicable to the insurants who pay their premium/premia in cash. 16. From a plain reading of Rule 39(1) it clearly go to show that this Rule and the provisio-1 thereto are applicable if in the case of a policy where death of policyholder takes place before the completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy bond. Herein in our case as per policy bond at Ex.P-1 the date of acceptance of the policy is 11-01-02. This date of acceptance is not in dispute. The date of the death of the policyholder/Ambalayya according to the complainant and the Respondents and as per death certificate at Ex.P-8 is on 03-04-05. So the date of death of policyholder comes to (3) years two months & twenty two days i.e, more than (38) months from the date of acceptance of policy. Hence the death of the policyholder in this case is beyond (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy and not within (36) months so as to attract Rule 39(1). Even for application of Rule 39(2) the death of policyholder must be within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. This Rule 39(2) reads as under:- (2) Not withstanding what is stated above, if death of the Life assured occurs within thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy, a further period of remission shall be allowed in respect of such policies where premia remain unpaid beyond the period of grace permitted under Rule 28 in the following manner. .. Rule 40(1) reads as under: 40(1) Settlement of claims in respect of policies which have remained in force beyond thirty six months from the date of acceptance of policy. If, in the case of a policy which has remained in force for not less than thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy and where any premium/premia have become due after such period be not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per Rule 28, the policy shall cease to be active at the end of twelve months from the date the first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policy. For application of Rule 40(1) the policy must be inforce beyond (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. Here the policy was not inforce beyond (36) months from 02-01-02 the date of acceptance as the premium has been paid only upto June-2004 and the premium has not been paid from July-2004 to April-2005. Hence the policy was inforce upto June-2004 from 02-01-02 the date of acceptance of policy which works out (29) months and so this policy having not been inforce beyond (36) months Rule 40(1) is not attracted and thereby the provisio 1 to this Rule 40(1) will also not come to aid. 17. Therefore viewed from any angle Rule 39(1) & (2) and Rule 40(1) are not applicable and therefore the Repudiation of the claim made by the Respondents 1 to 3 which has been intimated to the complainant vide their letter dt. 29-11-05 at Ex.P-13, cannot be said to be deficient in their service. Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim under policy. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 18. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-05-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR. COMPLAINT NO. DCFR. 146/06. THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY 2008. P R E S E N T 1. Sri. N.H.Savalagi, B.A.LLB. (Spl) PRESIDENT. 2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER. 3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER. ***** COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Lalithamma W/o. Late Ambalayya Kambar, Age: Major, Occ: Household, R/o. Phool Bhavi village, Post: Honnalli via Hutti, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. //VERSUS// RESPONDENTS :- 1. The Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI) O/o Chief Post Master, General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore. 2. The Post Master, Post Office (PLI) Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur. 3. The Post Master, EFE branch, (PLI), Head Post Office, Raichur. 4. The Divisional Controller (D.C) N.E.K.S.R.T.C. Raichur Division, Raichur. CLAIM :- For direction to Respondents to pay the PLI insured sum of Rs. One Lakh with interest damages and cost. Date of institution :- 27-10-06. Notice served :- 30-11-06. Date of disposal :- 31-05-08. Complainant represented by Sri. Y.Srikanth, Advocate. Respondent No 1 to 3 represented by Sri. D.G.P. Respondent No-4 represented by Sri. M.D.Sultan, Advocate. ----- This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following. JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Smt. Lalithamma against the four Respondents- (1) Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI) Office of Chief Post Master General, Karnataka Circle, Bangalore (2) Post Master Post Office (PLI) Lingasugur, District Raichur (3) Post Master EFE Branch (PLI) Head Post Office, Raichur and (4) Divisional Controller NEKRTC (DC) Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is the legally wedded wife of late Ambalayya S/o. Hanumanthappa who was having a Post Life Insurance Policy No. KT-179285-US which was accepted on 11-01-02. Her husband policyholder had paid the premiums regularly and he died on 03-04-05 due to circumstance beyond his control and due to reasons of his health grounds. He had been admitted in the hospital and he was under treatment in the hospital and could not pay premium of policy from July 2004 to April 2005. The complainant being his wife and nominee under the said policy has filed an application claiming the policy amount by furnishing the required documents. But the Respondent NO-1 Assistant Divisional Manager PLI Bangalore has written a letter to the complainant stating that the policy is lapsed due to non-payment of premiums for the period of July 2004 to April 2005 which falls before the completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy. This letter of Respondent No-1 is wrong as from the date of acceptance of policy i.e, 11-01-02 to the date of death of the policyholder i.e, 03-04-05 the period is 38 months 23 days. So according to Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules the statement of the claim in-respect of policies where death take place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy and non-payment of premium arrived due to circumstance beyond his control means the legal heirs are entitled for policy amount after deduction un paid premiums along with cost. The period of remission shall be allowed in-respect of policies where premium remained un-paid beyond the period of grace permitted under Rule 28. Actually according to Rule 28 the authority is not given grace period for making payment of premium. The Postal authority has not given further period of remission in-respect of further payment of un-paid premium beyond the period of grace under Rule 28. The death of the policyholder occurred within (36) months as such according to Rule the legal heir of the insurant is entitled for the claim after deduction of un-paid premium with interest. Rule 39(2) (5) and Rule 40 is very clear in favour of the complainant. The policyholder has not paid premium due to non-payment of salary and also medical treatment etc., the amount of premium is deducted from the salary of deceased through the employer i.e, Divisional Controller NEKRTC pertaining to Post Office Insurance Policy of the deceased Ambalayya. The complainant submitted the copy of application dt. 18-09-06 issued by Divisional Manager, KSRTC in-respect of absent from the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 of her deceased husband which is material and authenticate that her husband was absent from duties for the period due to his ill health and treatment. The husband of the complainant working as driver in Lingasugur Depot. He was under treatment from 17-03-05 to 03-04-05 the Government Hospital Lingasugur and Dr. Shivabasappa attended the deceased and issued medical certificates which has been produced. Her husband took treatment from 01-07-04 to 20-08-04 in Primary Health Center Bilagi. He also got treatment from 06-06-04 to 25-06-04 in Vasavi Clinic Lingasgur and also took treatment from Government Hospital Lingasugur from 18-04-02 to 23-10-04. Thereafter her husband took treatment from 24-10-04 to 25-11-04 in Hutti Gold Mines Company Hospital and expired on 03-04-05. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and so the complainant has no other alternate except to file the present complaint due to negligence act and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The complainant suffered mental agony. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondents to pay the PLI insured sum of Rs. One Lakh with interest damages and cost. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared through DGP Respondent NO-1 has filed written statement which has been adopted by Respondent NO- 2 & 3. Late Amballayya had taken Postal Life Insurance Policy for Rs. One Lakh as life covering risk from 11-01-02 and when he was required to credit premium of Rs. 495/- every month at Lingasugur Post Office since he had opted for payment of premium in cash. But he has not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards and due to non payment of the premium the policy has become vide in terms of Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. Hence the claim of the complainant was not honoured and it was informed accordingly vide letter PLI/D/10883/D. Claim dt. 29-11-05. The reasons put forth by the complainant that due to non-drawal of pay premium for the months from July 2004 to July 2005 could not be paid by the insurant is not tenable since it is a cash policy and it is the responsibility of the insurant to pay the premium regularly. As the policy is lapsed during the life time of the insurant due to non-payment of the premium for the months June 2004 to April 2005 the complainant is not entitled for any claim. As the insurant had not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards during his life time which was due within a period of (36) months from the date of acceptance the policy is treated as lapsed in terms of Rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules as such the letter No. PLI/D/10883/D claim dt. 29-11-05 issued by Respondent No-1 is quite in-order to the insurance died on 03-04-05 as per death certificate produced by the complainant and the period from the date of acceptance to the date of death is certainly above (36) months and this point is not disputed. But the provisions Rule 39(1) are applicable in-respect of policies where death takes place within (36) months as the date of acceptance. Hence the contention of the complainant is wrong and complaint is not entitled for any claim. The remission period is applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant take place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. In the instant case the insurant died after (36) months. Hence the remission clause is not applicable and the contention of the complainant is not tenable. The provisions of Rule 39(2)v cited by the complainant are applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant occurs within (36) months from the date of acceptance. In the instant case the death of the insurant has occurred after (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy and this fact is not disputed by the Respondent. But the contention of the complainant that provisions of Rule 39(2)v Rule 40 of Post Office Insurance Rules are in her favour is wrong since the death is occurred after (36) months and policy has become void. The insurant had opted for the payment of premium in cash and not through pay recovery hence the contention of the complainant that non-payment of premium was due to non receipt of salary due to medical treatment etc., does not holds good and not tenable. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents 1 to 3. In-fact there is negligence on the part of the insurant to abide by the terms of the contract which has resulted in lapsing of the policy. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents 1 to 3 have sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. Originally this complaint was filed only against Respondents 1 to 3 and after appearance of Respondents 1 to 3 the complainant filed an application for impleading Respondent NO-4 and accordingly Respondent No-4 was impleaded as such who appeared through counsel as under:- It is contended that this Respondent No-4 is neither proper nor necessary party to the complainant. The deceased Ambalayya has not attended to duties and in-view of the same which is not been paid any salary and accordingly the premium could not be deducted and paid to the concerned authorities. The same is not binding of this Respondent any payment has to be made by the holder only and any liability in-respect of the same shall be on the part of the Respondent No- 1 to 3 only. As the deceased has not attended to duties consequently there arises no question of deduction of premium amount and sending the same to the respective person. Further-more there is no liability binding on this Respondent for reimbursement of any of the said premium amount in any manner and accordingly any liability of the payment of policy amount is solely on the part of the other Respondents. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent No-4 as such the complaint against him deserves to be dismissed. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-4 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent with cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant-Lalithamma has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent No-1 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief which as RW-1 has been adopted by Respondent No-2 & 3. On behalf of Respondent NO-4 Assistant Superintendent KSRTC Raichur (Shankerlinga) has filed his affidavit as RW-2 and sworn affidavit of B.M. Sundaram I/c Assistant Administrative Officer of NEKRTC Raichur has been filed by way of examination-in-chief as RW-3 and this RW-3 has been cross-examined by the complainant. On behalf of the complainant about (19) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P.19 which include Original Postal Life Insurance Bond at Ex.P-1 got produced by the Respondent 1 to 3 and the order NO. 142/05 dt. 20-05-05 of Divisional Controller NEKRTC Raichur at Ex.P-9 produced by Respondent No-4 has been order on I.A.No-4. On behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 (3) documents were got marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. On behalf of Respondent No-4 (11) documents were got marked at Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-14. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim under PLI Policy, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the Negative. 2.As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that late Ambalayya was working as driver in KSRTC at Lingasugur Depot and was having Postal Life Insurance Policy No. KT-179285-US which was accepted on 11-01-02. It is also not in dispute that the complainant-Lalithamma is the widow of Ambalayya and nominee. The Respondents 1 to 3 have contended that the late insurant-Ambalayya had taken PLI policy for Rs. One Lakh on his life covering the risk and he had opted the payment of monthly premium of Rs. 495/- in cash and accordingly the monthly premium was credited at the Lingasugur Post Office and that he has not paid the premium for the of months July 2004 onwards and due to non-payment of premia due, the policy has become void in terms of Rule 39(1) of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and accordingly the same has been informed to the complainant vide letter No. PLI/D/10883/D.Claims dt. 29-11-05. The reasons put forth by the complainant that due to non-drawal of salary, premium for the months from July 2004 to April 2005 could not be paid by the insurant is not tenable since it is a cash policy and it is responsibility of the insurant to pay the premium regularly. As the policy is lapsed during the life time of the insurant for non-payment of premium from July 2004 to April 2005 the complainant is not entitled for any claims. The Respondents to substantiate their contention have produced Original Policy Bond as called for by the complainant as per I.A. No-3, and the same has been marked as Ex.P-1. This document at Ex.P-1 among other things shows the mode of payment/premium as Cash. The Respondents have also produced copy of Proposal Form of PLI submitted by the late insurant vide Ex.R-1. Copy of letter of the PLI authorities issued to the policyholder regarding acceptance of the policy, at Ex.R-2 and copy of premium Receipt Book in-respect of policy held by late insurant, at Ex.R-3. 8. It is the case of the complainant that the premium amount was paid through salary deductions. The complainant has produced pay-slips for the month of June 2002 at Ex.P-16, for the month of November at Ex.P-17 for the month of December at Ex.P-19, and has also produced a certificate by Depot Manager NEKRTC Lingasugur Depot, certifying that Rs. 495/- (monthly premium) has been deducted in the monthly salary of Ambalayya driver No. 2150 from the month of March 2002 to September 2003 and the same has been remitted in Sub-Post Office Lingasugur vide PLI No. KT-179285-US. Further-more the Respondent NO-4 Divisional Controller (DC) NEKRTC has produced pay-slips for the months from October to December 2003 and January 2004 to June 2004 at Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-12. The pay slips for the month of June, November & December 2002 vide Ex.P-16, Ex.P-17, & Ex.P-19 shows deduction of PLI premium of Rs. 495/- in the salary for these months. There-part the certificate at Ex.P-18 shows that the Depot Manager Lingasugur has certified that the PLI premium of Rs. 495/- having been deducted from the month of March 2002 to September 2003 and the same has been credited in Sub-Post Office Lingasugur. 9. From a combined reading of Ex.P-18 the certificate issued by Depot Manager Lingansugur at Ex.P-18 and from the pay slips at Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-11 issued by Depot Manager Sindhanur, it shows that the monthly PLI premium for the months from March 2002 to September 2003 has been deducted from the salary of late Ambalayya who was then working in NEKRTC Depot at Lingasugur and in-consequences of transfer of late Ambalayya to NEKRTC Depot Sindhanur, the monthly premium having been deducted from the salary of late Ambalayya from November 2003 to May 2004. Except the copy of Premium Receipt Book of the insurant-Ambalayya at Ex.R-3. The Respondents have not produced any Registers or Book regarding receipt of Monthly premium of the concerned insurant from Sub-Post Office Lingasgur and Sub Post Office Sindhanur to show as to from whom they have actually received the monthly premium, since the pay slips shows the deduction of monthly premium by the Pay Drawing Officer of the insurant. Of-course the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 and the Proposal Form at Ex.R-1 which is the out come of the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 shows the mode of payment of premium as by cash meaning thereby payment by insurant and not by salary deduction. But in the instant case the documentary evidence at Ex.P-16 to Ex.P-19 especially the certificate of Depot Manager Lingasugur at Ex.P-18 and monthly pay slips issued by Depot Manager Sindhanur for the months from November-2003 to May-2004 vide Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-11 undoubtedly shows the monthly premium of late insurant having been deducted from his salary and the same has been credited by pay disbursing officer. If this is so the mode of payment in cash as mentioned in the proposal form at Ex.R-1 which is the out come of Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 mentioning so, cannot be taken that the mode of payment of premium was by cash. It would be more-so when the proposal form at Ex.R-1 showing the mode of payment of monthly premium in cash and which came to be so mentioned in the Policy Bond at Ex.P-1 has not been filled in by the insurant as discussed above. It appears that the insurant was under the impression of deduction of monthly premium from his salary and accordingly it was so done by his pay Disbursing Officer/Depot Manager at Lingasugur and at Sindhanur respectively. Hence by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the mode of payment was in cash merely because it was so mentioned in the Policy Bond, especially when the monthly premium having been accepted by salary deduction by the concerned postal authorities at Lingasugur and Sindhanur. At the cost of repetition the non-production of the Register/Book regarding the receipt of monthly premium is fatal to the Respondent No- 1 to 3. The Register or Book maintained by Sub-Post Office at Lingasugur and/ or at Sindhanur would have been thrown light regarding the actual payment of premium made by the employer of the insurant or in cash by the insurant. 10. We have another document of the Respondents which supports that mode of payment of premium was by salary-deduction. This document is a letter of Principle Chief Post Master General Postal Life Insurance 2nd floor, GPO Building., Bangalore addressed to the complainant-Lalithamma which is produced at Ex.P-12. This letter which is material interalia reads as under: From: To: Principal Chief Post Master General Smt. Lalilthamma W/o. late Postal Life Insurance 2nd Floor, GPO Bldg., Ambalayya, Kambar, at Phool Bangalore-560 001. Bhavi Post Honnalli via Hutti Raichur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. PLI/TC-/391 dtd @ Bg-560 001, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sir, Subject: Settlement of claim in-respect of PLI Policy KT179285-US Held by late Sri/Smt Ambalayya. Recovery Particulars-reg. As per our records, the following period are Non-Credits. Schedules are verified in-respect of the above mentioned insurant. But credits are not found. From To Policy No. Premium 7/04 to 4/05 KT-179285-US Rs. 495. No. reply has been received from the Accounts Officer, KSRTC Lingasugur W/r to this office letter dt. 24-06-05. Kindly intimate whether recovery of premia has been made for the above mentioned period, is so, the details thereon. If not recovered, the reasons may be intimated. The above information is required for speedy settlement of claim preferred by you. .. Please forward the Premia Receipt Book or post office receipts, for verification. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Pr.Chief Post Master General(PLI) Karnataka Circle, Bangalore- 560001. This letter at Ex.P-12 shows that the Postal Authorities had addressed a letter to the Accounts Officer KSRTC Lingasugur Depot dt. 24-06-05 regarding non-payment of premium from July-2004 to April-2005. If the monthly premium was received in cash by the insurant, then there was no need for them to address a letter dt. 24-06-05 to the Accounts Officer KSRTC Lingasugur. This is also a circumstance which also show that the payment of premium was not in cash but it was by salary deduction, Or the Respondents have allowed and treated the mode of payment of premium from salary deduction instead of in cash as mentioned in the policy bond. Consequently when the Respondents have let loosed the insurant in payment of premiums by mode of salary deduction, then they are now estopped from contending against such mode. 11. Now let us consider regarding lapsing of policy as contended by the Respondents. The Respondents 1 to 3 in Para-3 of their written version have contended that insurant has not paid the premium for the months of July 2004 and onwards and due to non-payment of premia due the policy has become void in terms of Rule 39(1) Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and the same has been informed to the complainant vide letter dt. 29-11-05. In Para-4 of written version they have further contended that the insurant died on 03-04-05 as per death certificate produced by the complainant and the period from date of acceptance to the date of death is certainly above (36) months. But the provisions Rule 39(1) are applicable in-respect of policies where death takes place within (36) months from the date of acceptance. The remission is applicable in-respect of policies where death of the insurant takes place within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. In the instant case the insurant has died after (36) months hence the remission is not applicable and the contention of the complainant is not tenable. The Letter dt. 29-11-05 issued by Respondents to the complainant is produced at Ex.P-13. This letter which is in the shape of repudiation of the claim of the complainant shows that the policy is lapsed under Rule-39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules due to non-payment of premia for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 which falls before completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. 12. The allegation of non-payment of monthly premium for the period from July-2004 to May-2005 has not been disputed by the complainant. In Para-6 of complaint it is stated that the policyholder has not paid the premium due to non-payment of salary and also due to medical treatment etc., In Para-7 it is averred that as per the letter of Divisional Manager KSRTC dt. 18-09-06 in-respect of absent to the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 of her husband Ambalayya which is material and authenticate that her husband was absent for duties due to his ill health and treatment. The complainant has produced the letter dt. 18-09-06 at Ex.P-14 of Depot Manager Sindhanur addressed to Divisional Manager PLI Karnataka Circle Bangalore stating that late Ambalayya driver Badge No. 2150 was absent for the duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05 as per the records maintained in his office. 13. The complainant has produced medical certificates at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-10. From a perusal of medical certificates at Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-10 it amply shows that late Ambalayya was suffering from illness and was under medical treatment under different doctors at different places and lastly he was admitted in Government Hospital Lingasgur from 17-03-05 for the illness Pulmonary Tuberculosis and he died on 03-04-05 during the treatment. These medical certificates in-turn shows that he was absent from duty because of his suffering from acute illness. As stated above the letter of Depot Manager Sindhanur at Ex.P-14 dt. 18-09-06 shows that late driver Ambalayya was absent from duty 30-05-04 to 03-04-05. The Respondent No-4 has produced Extract of Leave Account of the Service Register of late driver Ambalayya at Ex.R-13. This Leave Account Extract shows that late Ambalayya/driver was absent from duty for some period with gaps but he was continuously absent from duties from 30-05-04 to 03-04-05. 14. As per the contention of the Respondents 1 to 3 and their letter dt. 29-11-05 at Ex.P-13 the policy is lapsed under Rule 39 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules due to non-payment of premia for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 which falls before completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. 15. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the material placed on record shows that the PLI premium was being deducted from the salary of insurant and it was remitted upto June-2004. The medical certificates go to show that he was suffering from illness and due to which he could not attend to duties and remained absent even his absence has been treated as leave without pay as per Leave Account Extract Ex.R-13. So the non-payment of premium for the period from July-2004 to April-2005 was beyond the control of policyholder and as such as per provisio-1 to Rule 39(1) of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules the Respondents could have settled the claim of the complainant and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. In-support of his arguments he has referred the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules. Rule 39(1) & provisio 1 & 2 reads as under:- 39(1) Settlement of claim in respect of policies where death takes place within thirty six months from the date of acceptance of policy:- If, in the case of a policy where death takes place before the completion of thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy bond and where any prmium/premia have become due be not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per rule 28, the policy shall become void and all claims to any benefit in virtue thereof shall cease and all moneys that have been paid in consequence thereof shall be forfeited except in cases mentioned hereafter. i) Provided that, for the purpose of this rule, an insured person is not to be considered as in arrears of premium for any month so long as he had not been able to draw his pay pension, or subsistence allowance during suspension or if the insured person is on leave in India, any leave allowance though due for the month next before it, due to circumstances beyond his control. See also Note 4 to Rule 28 and Note below rule 36. ii) Provided further that the provision (i) above shall not be applicable to the insurants who pay their premium/premia in cash. 16. From a plain reading of Rule 39(1) it clearly go to show that this Rule and the provisio-1 thereto are applicable if in the case of a policy where death of policyholder takes place before the completion of (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy bond. Herein in our case as per policy bond at Ex.P-1 the date of acceptance of the policy is 11-01-02. This date of acceptance is not in dispute. The date of the death of the policyholder/Ambalayya according to the complainant and the Respondents and as per death certificate at Ex.P-8 is on 03-04-05. So the date of death of policyholder comes to (3) years two months & twenty two days i.e, more than (38) months from the date of acceptance of policy. Hence the death of the policyholder in this case is beyond (36) months from the date of acceptance of the policy and not within (36) months so as to attract Rule 39(1). Even for application of Rule 39(2) the death of policyholder must be within (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. This Rule 39(2) reads as under:- (2) Not withstanding what is stated above, if death of the Life assured occurs within thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy, a further period of remission shall be allowed in respect of such policies where premia remain unpaid beyond the period of grace permitted under Rule 28 in the following manner. .. Rule 40(1) reads as under: 40(1) Settlement of claims in respect of policies which have remained in force beyond thirty six months from the date of acceptance of policy. If, in the case of a policy which has remained in force for not less than thirty six months from the date of acceptance of the policy and where any premium/premia have become due after such period be not paid either on first day of the month for which the premium is due or within the period of grace allowed as per Rule 28, the policy shall cease to be active at the end of twelve months from the date the first unpaid premium had become due in respect of such policy. For application of Rule 40(1) the policy must be inforce beyond (36) months from the date of acceptance of policy. Here the policy was not inforce beyond (36) months from 02-01-02 the date of acceptance as the premium has been paid only upto June-2004 and the premium has not been paid from July-2004 to April-2005. Hence the policy was inforce upto June-2004 from 02-01-02 the date of acceptance of policy which works out (29) months and so this policy having not been inforce beyond (36) months Rule 40(1) is not attracted and thereby the provisio 1 to this Rule 40(1) will also not come to aid. 17. Therefore viewed from any angle Rule 39(1) & (2) and Rule 40(1) are not applicable and therefore the Repudiation of the claim made by the Respondents 1 to 3 which has been intimated to the complainant vide their letter dt. 29-11-05 at Ex.P-13, cannot be said to be deficient in their service. Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim under policy. So Point No-1 is answered in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 18. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-05-08) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.