BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE:26^th November 2015         

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:239/2015    

Complainant/s:       Balakrishna s/o. Vittalarao Ijantakar,             Age: 49 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o. C-3/1, Staff Quarters, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Raj Nagar, Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad.

                                (By Sri.P.S.Udikeri, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:         The Deputy General Manager, (PLI), 2^nd Floor, GPO Complex, Bengaluru 560001. R/by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharwad Division, Dharwad 580008

                                (By A.D.G.P.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay interest @24% P.A on the sum of Rs.10,000/- i.e. 3^rd installment of survival benefit amount under PLI policy from 28.02.2013 till realization of the same and to order for to pay Rs.3,000/- spent on correspondence, Rs.5,000/- towards financial loss and Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had taken PLI policy bearing No.MH AEAI 72260 –CC by Deputy Divisional Manager of PMG Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai. Thereafter complainant had taken 2 survival benefits of Rs.10,000/- each on the said policy on 2 occasions by the orders of this Forum. Accordingly 3^rd  survival benefit came to be due by 28.02.2013. But respondent did not settled the same. Hence, by a letter dtd.15.02.2014 approached the respondent. But no response from the respondent till 20.03.2014. Only on 12.02.2015 the respondent paid Rs.10,000/- & not paid any interest on the said amount. This amounts to deficiency in service. Since the complainant had made strenuous repeated efforts of writing letters, issuing of notices and repeated approaches the complainant had spent huge amount apart from it at the instance of the respondent, complainant subjected to both mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondent taken contention that the present complaint as brought is not maintainable. While the answering respondent admits the PIL bond and eligibility of the complainant for survival benefits. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent taken contention that as per the circular the respondents intimated the complainant before the survival benefits came to be due for payment calling upon the complainant to produce relevant documents. Despite of intimation the complainant did not respond and submits the relevant documents. Only on 17.12.2014 the complainant submits the claim form along with documents. Immediately same was processed and arrangements were made and paid the benefit to the complainant on 06.12.2015 as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent as such the complainant is not entitled for interest or the complainant claimed and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively 
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant had obtained PIL bond and he is eligible for survival benefits as per the bond.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent had delayed in paying the survival benefits as such the complainant is entitled for interest and cost of the proceedings and compensation, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     Based on the pleadings and evidence and contention taken by the both parties one more point has arised for consideration apart from issues framed by this Forum i.e. whether the present complaint after settlement of the claim by the respondent is maintainable.

8.     As per the own admission of the complainant, complainant received the 3^rd installment survival benefits on 12.02.2015. While receiving the said amount nor in the pleadings the complainant nowhere mentioned or stated he had received the 3^rd installment survival benefits under protest. So, once petitioner has received the amount unconditionally, then he ceased to be a consumer as per the Act - privity of contract came to an end. In this regard this Forum would like to rely on citation 2013 (1) CPJ 637 NC Vijay Stationers vs. United India insurance co. Ltd., Also relied on 2012 (2) CPR 521 NC M/s.Shivram Gramodyog Sansthan vs. United India insurance co. Ltd., wherein it is held, complainant cannot make any claim after full and final settlement of claim. Hence in the instant complaint complainant had received the survival benefits settled by the respondent without protest on 12.02.2015 as per Ex.C-8 Dtd.06.02.2015.

9.     Even coming to the merits side and also as per the contention taken by the respondent, respondent had sent intimation to the complainant on 18.01.2013 as per Ex.R3 intimating the respondent to submit the relevant documents to obtain 3^rd installment of the periodical  survival benefits which is to be due dtd.28.02.2013 i.e prior to fell due. Further contention of the respondent is that the complainant submits the claim along with documents only on 17.12.2014 as per Ex.R5. The same was processed on 19.12.2014 by the respondent as per Ex.R5 as a further action for settlement. Accordingly processed and settled the claim on 06.02.2015 as per Ex.C8. So the respondent without any further delay in earliest time has settled the claim & it reveals no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.

10.   It is to be noted here that as per the own admission by the complainant, complainant is well aware of the procedural aspects to obtain the survival benefits. Even then on the interference of the Forum only the complainant obtained earlier 2  previous installments. Under those circumstances certainly the complainant is well aware of the procedural aspects and filing of claim and furnishing of documents. Inspite of it the complainant slept over and by misutilizing the benvolency of the Act and meagre court fee and cost of the proceedings for every minute reliefs he is knocking the doors of the Forum by making false allegations against the respondent and claiming interest and cost of the proceedings for his own fault. This attitude of the complainant should not be encouraged and condemned and has to be punished by imposing heavy costs to curb his attitude and making spurious complaints. However with a warning, this should not be repeated in future for the present claim is rejected by not imposing the punitive damages.

11.   In view of the discussions and conclusion we arrived we inclined to hold issue.1 in negative and issue.2 accordingly.

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 26^th day of November 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR