Orissa

Rayagada

CC/383/2016

Sri Kumaru Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rajendra Kumar Senapathi

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 383/ 2016.                                        Date.     28  .    3    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Kumaru Naik,  S/O: Late Rabi Naik,  Village:Banteji, Po:Sungeri,  Via:Kasipur,  Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Branch Post Master,Village: Odajor, Dist:Rayagada(Odisha).
2. The Sr. Superintendent of post office,Koraput Division,Jeypore.
3. The Post Master General,Berhampur, Dist:Ganjam.

..Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri R.K.Senapati, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- In person.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of death claim  Rural Postal life insurance  policy.

 

On being Noticed to the O.Ps the O.P. No.2 appeared  in person before the forum  and stated that being the operational head of Koraput postal Division is competent  to file the reply on behalf of all the   O.Ps   inter alia filed   written  version refuting the allegation made against them. The O.Ps taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  written version filed by the O.Ps it is revealed that  undisputedly  the complainant Sri Kumaru Naik  is the son of Late  Smt.  Sadamati Naik, mother of the complainant  had submitted her proposal  before the  O.P. No.1  for enrolment under   Rural Postal Life Insurance(RPLI scheme) on Dt. 30.8.2008. She used to deposit monthly premium @ Rs.150/- at  O.P. No.1’s office  since August, 2008 to 25.9.2014 regularly which is undisputed and genuine. 

 

The  O.Ps contended  in their written version  that due to missing of records at any of the  official hierarch, this office  did not  receive the RPLI proposal  form submitted by the insurant   late Sadamati Naik and hence policy number and policy documents  could not be issued in favour of  Late  Sadamati Naik, should conti nued  deposit of monthly premia at O.P’s office but did not heed to bring the fact of non issuance of policy  documents in favour to the congnizance of this office. As  such  the O.P. No.2  could  not  discern the grievance of the late  insurant.  

 

The  O.Ps further  contended  in their written version  that had the late insurant preferred a representation  to the O.P. No.2  stating non receipt  of policy documents by her, substantial action would have been taken expedtiously for issuance  of policy documents in favour of the late insurant.  On death of late insurant Smt. Sadamati Naik, on Dt. 25.9.2014 non of her legal heirs preferred  claim pertaining to the  RPLI policy  held by  her to the O.P. No.2.  Now without preferring claim before the appropriate authority, the claimant has preferred this complaint case before the hon’ble forum.

 

The  O.Ps again  contended  in their written version  that the insurer is no more, duplicate proposal form can not be obtained at this juncture.  Due to undeniable  want of original proposal form submitted by the  late  insurant during  opening of the RPLI policy, policy No. and policy documents can  not  be  issued at this crossroad.   As per the authoritative  guidelines of the Department, the competent claimant should prefer  refund of the RPLI premia deposited by his late  mother duly supported by the premia receipts  to the  O.P. No.2  for sanction in his favour.  The insurance amount can not be sanctioned in favour of the claimant in absence of policy  number and original  policy documents  as per existing  Rules and Regulations of the Department.

 

Prior  to delve in to the merit  of the case on outset  we have to  consider Whether  the complainant is entitled  to insurance assured  death  claim made by his  deceased  mother ?

  While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citation.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2013(4) page No. 43 (National Commission) In the case of the Post Master,Sub-post office, Bijegaon & Ors  Vrs. Shri Babu Rao and Anr  where in the commission  observed  “Postal Service-Rural Postal Life  Insurance Policy- Repudiation of death claim  on ground that policy bond  was  not issued  to  deceased and there was   no  any contract - District Forum allowed complaint  and directed to pay the assured  death claim amount -  As the complainant    is nominee and  legal heirs of deceased  - The  Hon’ble  National Commission confirmed   the   decision of the District Forum  on Dt.1.10.2013  in Revision  petition   No. 1572  of 2013.

Accordingly answered the issue.   The complainant is entitled the   insurance assured  death  claim  amount  in the  present  case in hand   on the basis  of the  above citation.

Again this  forum observed that for failure to act properly by the statutary authorities i.e. O.Ps the complainant  should not be deprived of his benefits legitmate entitlement. It is  to be ensured   that the benefit to which the complainant is eligible are  entitled  enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.  In most of the similar  cases  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court observed  “Negligence  by  public authorities cannot be paradoned.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                                                                       ORDER.

            In  resultant   the complaint petition stands allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.Ps. 

The O.Ps  ordered  to pay the  assured death claim  amount to the  complainant.

The OPs     ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  60 days from the  date of  receipt  of this order      failing which  an interest  @ Rs.9%  per annum  would  accrue on the above  amount . from  the date of  default   till  realization.

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        28 ^th.   Day of  March  ,   2018.

 

 

 

 Member.                                                            Member.                                                             President