Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/316/2019

C. Erappa S/o Chikkappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager CPC Chitradurga HO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R. Jagadeesh

26 Jul 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:02/05/2019

DISPOSED      ON:26/07/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:316/2019

 

DATED: 26^th JULY 2019

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

……COMPLAINANT/S	C.Erappa S/o Chikkappa Aged about 57 years, Agriculturist, R/o Thurebalu, Bheemasamudra, Hireguntanuru Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk. (Rep by Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, CPC, Chitradurga H.O, Chitradurga 577501.   2. Assistant Director, (RPLI), South Karnatka Region, 2nd Floor, GPO Building, Bengaluru-560001. 3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Chitradurga Division, Chitradurga. (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veerana                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              , Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay  Rs. 1,53,056/- as compensation amount along with interest and to grant such other relief.

2.     The brief facts of the case. That the complainant had obtained a policy bearing No. R-KT-SK-EA-282731 for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,  the date of commencement of risk was from 20/09/2007. Further the said policy had been issued by the OP NO.2 in favour of the complainant. The complainant had appointed Smt.K. Nagarathna as nominee who is none other than the wife of the complainant. After obtaining the policy under RPLI/Santhosh (endowment assurance) Rural postal Life Insurance Scheme,  the complainant had paid Rs. 2,338/- every 3 months i.e., quarterly, from 29/08/2007 till June 2010 in all a sum of Rs. 28,056/- in respect of the above said policy to the OP and the OP No.1 had acknowledged the receipt of the said amount.

3. Further the complainant had surrendered the above said original policy to the Op No.1, Head Post Office, Chitradurga during the year 2010 along with receipts for payment of said amounts as cited supra along with all the said documents, the OP No.3 has assured the complainant to repay the said amount which have been paid by the complainant in respect of the above said policy.

4. The OP.No.1 has issued a letter/intimation dated 23/10/2018 to the complainant with a reason that “premium paid of this policy was up-to May 2010 i.e., not completed up-to 36 months, maturity was not takes place as per policy rules 2011 due to non-completion of 36 months, hence policy bond and premium receipt book are returned.

5. At the time of issuance of said policy, the OPs have not properly and fully explained and convinced the complainant in respect of the terms and conditions of the policy and all of them have completely neglected in discharging  their duties at the time of issuance of the said policy to the complainant to pay the amount of premiums quarterly paid, along with necessary benefits, in the event of none payment of the premiums completely till the last date of installment, covering the risk and the benefits, covered under the said policy. Believing the words and promise of the OPs the complainant had obtained the said policy.

6. The original policy and even after perusal of the duplicate policy bond send to the complainant there are no any such terms and conditions for any violation by the complainant. The contents of the duplicate policy bond are not properly visible and could not read, hence the issuance of the duplicate policy bond to the complainant, is only with a malafide intention, to harass, trouble the complainant and to make wrongful gain and financial benefit to the OPs and to make wrongful loss to the complainant. Absolutely there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs which cannot be expected by the complainant. Therefore the OPs are responsible and answerable.

7. The complainant is an agriculturist, out of hard earned money,  had obtained the said policy and also paid amount to the OP for the interest for the financial benefit of himself and the family members. It is the bounden duty of the OP to pay a sum assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with all benefits and interest to the complainant, covering under said policy.

8. Absolutely, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP despite of collecting the huge amount of Rs. 28,056/- towards the said insurance policy from the complainant, as per documents available with the OPs as cited supra, it is bounden duty and responsibility to pay the said amount together with benefits/interest accrued to the complainant in respect of the above said policy. Hence this complaint.

9. The complainant had issued legal notice dated 22/11/2018 calling upon the OPs to pay the said amount, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, Even after receipt of the legal notice, the OPs have not paid the amount of Rs. 28,056/- received from the complainant and  issued vague and false reply/letter dated 24/12/2018, as such the intention of the OPs is very bad, oppose to public policy and natural justice.

10. The OPs is liable to pay Rs. 1,53,056/- to the complainant. The cause of action for the complainant has arisen at Chitradurga, when the OPs have issued the policy bearing No.R-KT-SK-28731 to the complainant, after receipt of a sum of Rs. 28,056/- towards the said policy, from 29/08/2007 till June 2010, after return of the duplicate policy bond and prior to the surrender of the original policy bond to the OPs by the complainant, after issue of legal notice dated 22/11/2018, after issue of reply letter dated 24/12/2018 and even after receipt of the same so far the OPs did not paid the said premium amounts in all a sum of Rs. 1,53,056/- together with benefits, interest, so far, which is continuing to  this day and which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum and well in time.

      11. After service of notice, OP.3 appeared through Sri. C.M. Veeranana Advocate, and filed version. In spite of notice to the OP 1 and 2 did not appear before this Forum to disprove the case of the complainant, hence placed ex-parte.

        According to version filed by the OP.3, it is stated that complainant has paid quarterly premium of Rs. 2,338/- for the months from September 2007 to May 2010 i.e. 11 quarterly premiums in all Rs. 25,718/-.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have not given any assurance to the complainant in the event of breech of RPLI policy terms and conditions to repay the amount of his policy.   It is further submitted that, in the policy bond under serial No.6, it is mentioned that, the policy shall be treated as lapsed in case the policy holder fails to pay the premium that has become due against the policy within the period of grace in accordance with Rule 39 and 40 of POIF ruled as applicable. It is further submitted that, under serial Number 08 of Premium receipt book, it is clearly stated that “If in the case of a policy before completion of thirty six months from acceptance of proposal if the premium is not paid before last day of each month (1 April in case of March) such policy will become void and will cease to be active at the end of 6 months from the 1^st day of the month for which the premium was due. The premia paid thereon will be forfeited if the policy is not revived. Similarly on a policy of more than 3 years duration, if premium is not paid on or lost day of any month in which premia falls due. Such policy will become void and will cease to be active at the end of 12 months from the first day of month for which the premium was due”.  Further as per Post Office Life Insurance Rules-2011 number 56(1) “the policy for which any premium/premia have become due, 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 44, the policy shall become void”, the same has been made known to the complainant. It is false state that the complainant has not been properly and fully explained the terms and conditions of the policy at the time of taking policy. It is false to state that the duplicate policy bond is issued to him with malafide intention, to harass, trouble the complainant and to make wrongful gain and financial benefit to the OPs, because the duplicate policy bond and duplicate premium receipt book were issued to him vide letters RPLI/Duplicate passbook/28273/13 dated 17.05.2017 and SK/RPLI/Duplicate Policy Bond/282731/DA-3 dated 05.07.2013 only on the request of the complainant vide his request letters dated 05.03.2013 to facilitate him for his future transactions.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Postal Department and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12. Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed his side. OPs have not examined any witness and not produced any documents.

13.  Arguments heard.

Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint is that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim under the above said insurance policy and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (3) What order?

         14. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

15.   Point No.1:-  The complainant has obtained a policy from the OPs bearing NO.RK-SK-EA-282731 for an sum assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20/09/2007 and the Policy bond has been issued by the OP.2 in fovour of the complainant. The complainant appointed one Smt. K. Nagarathana as nominee who is none other than the wife of the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay the premium amount of Rs. 2,338/- for every 3 months i.e., quarterly  from 29/08/2007 till June 2010 in all a sum of Rs. 28,056/-.

16. After that, in the year 2010 the complainant had approached the OPs claiming the premium amount and insurance amount from the OPs. By that time the OP No.1 has issued a letter dated 23/10/2018 to the complainant with a reason that premium paid of this policy was up to May-2010 and not completed up-to 36 months. Hence the OP No.1 has returned the policy bond and premium receipt to the complainant. After that the complainant has issued the legal notice to the OPs. By that time also, the OPs have gave the evasive answer. The Arguments addressed by the complainant Advocate that, once the premium amount has been accepted that amount has to be returned to the complainant.  But the OPs have not returned the premium amount of Rs. 28,056/- along with interest to the complainant till to day.   The OPs have taken only the contention in their letter that, the complainant has not paid the premium amount up-to 36 months. As per the documents produced by the complainant, it clearly goes to shows that the OPs have collected premium amount from the complainant up-to May 2010. Even the complainant has stopped further premium, by that time the OPs have to return the premium amount of Rs. 28,056/- to the complainant along with interest. In this case the OPs have not done the same. The OPs have simply repudiated on the ground that, the complainant has not paid the premium amount up to 36 months. The complainant has stopped the premium amount in the year 2010. But the OPs have not issued any letter to the complainant to come and pay the premium amount. In any angle it shows that the OPs have committed deficiency of service.

  17. We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant. The complainant has obtained policy from the OPs and agreed to pay the premium amount of Rs. 2,338/- to the OPs every three months once. Accordingly the complainant has paid Rs.28,056/- up to May-2010. Due to some financial problem, the complainant failed to pay the further premium to the OPs. In the year 2010 the complainant has submitted his requisition requesting the OPs to return the premium amount as already paid.   By that time the OPs have collated bond from the complainant and agreed to settle the claim. But they have not returned the same. Once they have collected the premium from the complainant, if the complainant fails to continue the same, by that time bounded duty of the OPs is to return the premium amount to the complainant immediately. In this case the OPs have not done the same. Hence the OPs have committed deficiency of service. For non-returning of the premium amount, which has been collected from the complainant, the complainant have put into great loss and mental agony, which is a deficiency of service.  Hence the Point No.1 is held partly affirmative and pass the following order.

                                                             ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.28,058/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of collecting of the premium amount from the complainant till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 26/07/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)        

 

                                     

LADY MEMBER           MEMBER          PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs: Nill

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1	Photo state copy of duplicate policy bond.
02	Ex-A-2:-	Photo State copy of details and payment of the said policy premiums.
03	Ex-A-3:-	Photo state copy of reply letter dated 23/10/2018.
04	Ex-A-4:-	Three registered original postal receipt for having issue of legal notices to the OPs.
05	Ex-A-5:-	Office copy of the legal notice dated 22/11/2018.
06	EX-A-6:-	Original reply letter dated 24/12/2018.

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Kms.,