The case of the complainant is that the original complainant A.M. Basheer permanently residing in the address mentioned in the complaint and now at Dhamam, Saudi Arabia due to his employment. So the complaint is filed through his power of attorney holder K.M. Abdulla. The complainant is a policyholder of the respondent Company bearing policy No.E 2824091. When the policy has been matured the complainant received an intimation regarding the maturity from the first respondent Company. On 27.1.04 the petitioner complied with all the formalities to receive the amount due under the above mentioned policy. But the first respondent Company informed that since the petitioner is in abroad they cannot issue cheque for the amount due under the policy in hand of others. The first respondent company assured that the amount will get within a month by way of cheque in favour of the petitioner. For the transaction, the petitioner given the details of the bank in which the petitioner has account and the account number on the very same day. The petitioner was entitled to get an amount of Rs.24,450/- as the maturity amount due in the above mentioned policy. But even today no amount is received from the respondents-1 and 2. The non-payment of the amount due under the policy is a deficiency in service and after the maturity of the policy it is the duty cast upon the respondents to pay the amount within time. The petitioner is perfectly entitled to get the amount due under the policy. Hence this complaint.

 

2. The counter is that the complaint has not been filed by the complainant, but a person alleges to be a power of attorney holder and the Power of Attorney has not been produced. So the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent Company. When the discharge form along with Form 15(G) duly filled up was received in the office, cheque for Rs.24,960/- (not Rs.24,450/-as stated in the complaint) was sent by Registered Post on 6.2.04 from City Post Office vide receipt No.607 to the complainant in the address given by him to be encashed through A/c payee cheque. When a letter dt. nil from the complainant has been received alleging non receipt of the registered letter enclosing cheque this respondent sent a letter No.973/TSR/RL – Maturity/SPL/2004 dt. 11.5.04 to the Post Master Vatanappilly requesting him to make necessary enquiries about the allegation of the complainant and furnish the details of delivery at the earliest to do further steps in the matter. Then a reply No.CR-3/42/04-05 dt. 18.5.04 was received by Ist respondent from Department of Posts, India. Thrissur Customer Care Centre, Head Post Office Building, Thrissur acknowledging the letter in which a further communication from the Department has been promised. This fact was informed by this respondent to the complainant by letter No.973/TSR/M/SPL/2004 dt. 4.6.04 in which it has also been stated that if the complainant has any further grievance in this matter, the Superintendent, Department of Posts, Thrissur Division, or this respondent may be contacted at the earliest to make further enquiries and copy of this letter was sent to the Superintendent also. But the complainant has never requested for this letter. Then the Superintendent, Department of Posts has sent a letter No.0123032 on 10.6.04 to this respondent stating that the matter has been enquired into and SPM Vatanappilly has reported that the above mentioned registered letter has been delivered to the correct addressee on 9.2.04. This respondent had sent the cheque properly to the complainant. If there is another person of the same name, same father’s name, same house name and same address and if the cheque has been mistakenly received by that person and if the cheque amount was encashed by him, steps has to be taken, civil and criminal, against him. For that purpose that person has to be impleaded in this O.P. and he has to be heard before proceeding further in the matter. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

3. The 3^rd respondent is served called absent and declared exparte.

 

4. The points for consideration are:

 

1. Is the complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount from the

respondents?

 

2. Other reliefs and costs.

 

5. The evidence consists of Exts. R1 tio R5 series.

 

6. Points-1 & 2: The complainant is a policyholder of the first respondent vide policy No.E 2824091. When the policy has been matured the complainant received an intimation regarding the maturity from the first respondent company. According to the complainant on 27.1.04 the complainant complied with all the formalities to receive the amount due, but the first respondent company informed that since the complainant is in abroad they cannot issue cheque for the amount due under the policy in hand of others. The first respondent company assured that the amount will get within a month by way of cheque in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, the complainant given the details of the bank in which the complainant has account and the number also. But the amount has not been received till day and this complaint has filed. In the version the first respondent has stated that when the request received in the office they sent cheque for Rs.24,960/- by registered post on 6.2.04 from City Post Office vide receipt No.607 to the complainant in the address given by him to be encashed through A/c payee cheque. So according to the Company the amount of Rs.24,960/- and not as stated by the complainant of Rs.24,450/- sent to the complainant through A/c payee cheque. But they received a letter without date from the complainant that the cheque enclosed letter has not been received by the complainant. So they sent a letter dated 11.5.04 to the Post Master Vatanappilly requesting to make enquiries and furnish details of delivery. A reply dated 18.5.04 was sent by the Department of Posts, India to the first respondent and this matter was intimated to the complainant but no response was from the complainant and there was also another letter from the SPM Vatanappilly dt. 10.6.04 stating that the matter has been enquired into and reported that it has been delivered to the correct addressee on 9.2.04. The first respondent has produced some documents and the letters and marked as Exts. R1 to R5 series. The definite case of complainant is that he has not received any amount from the first respondent even though he had applied and furnished the bank details. N the counter the first respondent stated that they already sent the amount of Rs.24,960/- through A/c payee cheque. This view of the complainant is established and admitted by the complainant through Ext. R1 letter. In the letter he has stated that due to non-acceptance of the amount he had enquired the matter with the first respondent and known that the amount had sent by the company on 27.1.04. Consequently he had approached the Vatanappilly Post office and learnt that there was another person in the same address and the cheque had delivered to that fellow. He also stated in Ext. R1 that when the postman realised the matter he had talked with that another fellow and he told that he had encashed the cheque and not willing to refund the amount. One intermediary of the complainant also contacted the other person, but he was reluctant to refund the amount. That person is impleaded as the third respondent and accepted the notice from the forum and remained exparte. The complainant further stated that the 3^rd respondent told the intermediary that by making correction of the account number he has done that mischief. This is a best piece of evidence and the complainant suppressed this letter and approached the Forum. He was well aware that the first respondent Company had discharged their liability. In spite of that he had filed complaint against the first and second respondents with ulterior motive. He has not even made a complaint to the police officials. When the first respondent received letter alleging non-receipt of the cheque enclosing letter first respondent sent a letter to the Postmaster Vatanappilly and the copy is marked as Ext. R2. That letter was immediately replied by the Department of Posts dated 18.5.04 and marked as Ext. R5 (a) and Ext. R5(b) is the cover. As per Ext. R5 (a) it was replied that they had delivered the letter to the correct addressee. This fact was intimated to the complainant by the first respondent by letter dt. 4.6.04 and marked as Ext. R4. But there was no further action from the complainant. It is a serious default on the part of complainant. He did not take any action against the third respondent or the Post Office authorities. He simply put a complaint before the Forum suppressing the material facts. He tried to penalise the Peerless Company who had discharged their liability much earlier. The third respondent who had misappropriated the amount is liable to compensate the complainant for his loss and mental agony.

 

7. The Postman who had delivered the letter to a wrong addressee is also responsible for the mischief. The complainant who was in abroad and usually communications are there with the family and the postman had many occasions to acquaint with the family and aware that he was in abroad. So delivering a registered letter to another Basheer suspects the part played by the concerned postal authorities also. After finding out the grave mistake the postal authorities also did not care to move against the third respondent. This is a serious negligence on their part. Since they are not parties in the complaint we are unable to penalise them. But without mentioning their negligent act the judgement in this case should not be completed.

 

8. From the above discussions it is established that there is no service deficiency on the part of respondents-1 and 2. The 3^rd respondent who has committed all the tactics is responsible for the reliefs sought by the complainant.

 

9. In the result complaint is allowed and the third respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs.24,960/- (Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred and sixty only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation. The 3^rd respondent is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of December 2008.

 

......................Padmini Sudheesh ......................Rajani P.S. ......................Sasidharan M.S