Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
The Complainant Parbati Roy invested money with the OP Post Master Bagribarihat Post Office, P.S. Haldibari, Cooch Behar under RPLI policy No.R-WB-SG-EA-2507285/10/07. Accordingly, OP received monthly premium with interest as stated in the schedule for a total sum of Rs.11,680/-. After lapse of a long time the OP did not deliver Postal life Insurance Policy despite several request by the Complainant. In the year 2017 the Complainant wanted to deposit premium but the O.P. No.1 stated that due to audit purpose the pass book is required and received the RPLI policy Pass Book from the Complainant but the O.P. No.1 did not return back the said pass book to the Complainant till today. Subsequently O.P. No.1 did not receive any premium from the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 could not trace out the pass book of the Complainant despite several request as a result of which the Complainant lodged a G.D.E to the Haldibari IC on 04.03.19. The Complainant also filed written complaint to the O.P. No.2 on 18.06.19, 10.09.20 and 26.07.21 for delivery of policy certificate, pass book and release of Complainant’s policy money with updated interest but the OP did not reply to the same nor did release the said policy money to the Complainant. Subsequently, the O.P. No.1 issued a credit certificate in favour of the Complainant on 06.01.20 in respect of RPLI policy on May, 2016 to January, 2020 but stopped thereafter to pay any premium subsequent to that period. Meanwhile the O.P. No.1 sent one application to revive the policy and as per instruction of the O.P. No.1 the Complainant submitted the application to the O.P. No.1. The aforesaid activities of the Complainant tantamounts to deficiency in service for which the Complainant sustained mental pain and agony as well as pecuniary loss. The Complainant is entitled to receive the original policy certificate, original pass book and total premium amount with up to date interest from the OP. The cause of action arose on 10.09.20, 26.07.21 and is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award for Rs.11,680/- towards premium alongwith interest as per policy terms and conditions, return of original pass book and policy certificate, Rs. 2 Lakhs towards mental pain and agony for deficiency in service Rs. 10,000/- towards travelling charge and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP denied each and every allegation in their written version by contesting the case. The defence case in a nutshell is that the present case is premature and not maintainable. The policy was not accepted by the department of post. The deposited amount has already been sanctioned in favour of Mrs. Parbati Roy and sent to her through registered post vide RL No. RW965951937IN dated 29.10.21 and the same was delivered to the addressee on 08.11.21. The Post Master, Haldibari reported that the Complainant Parbati Roy refused to accept the refunded amount of Rs.12,051/-. The Complainant actually deposited premium up to April, 2016 as per Office record. The Complainant lost her policy pass book and filed complaint after lapse of long time when her policy was already lapsed. The policy was not accepted by the department of post. She lost her policy pass book and failed to submit proper document within time and filed complaint after a long time. The OP called the Complainant so many times but she did not meet within the specified time. The claim of the Complainant is unjustified and manipulated. The OP claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed.
The nature of the dispute of the present case relates to both loss of pass book as well as refund of insurance policy which alleged to have been caused by O.Ps. The denial of the allegation by the OP led this Commission to ascertain the following points in dispute for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for determination
- Whether the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position as disclosed in Para-10 of the written version that the deposited amount has already been sanctioned in favour of Smt. Parbati Roy and sent to her through registered post vide RL. No. RW965951937IN dated 29.10.21.
Thus after perusing the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence on record it transpires that the relation between the Complainant and the OP is that of a customer and seller.
Ld. Defence counsel could not advance any document as to how the said dispute can be said to be a premature case and not maintainable in its present form and in law. The dispute is well within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and accordingly the case is legally maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.1 is thus answered in affirmative and in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
Both the points are very closely interlinked with each other and as such these are taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the admitted position that the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11,680/-. It is the defence plea of the OP that the deposited amount has already been sanctioned in favour of Mrs Parboti Roy and sent to her through registered post vide RL No. WR965951937IN dated 29.10.21. The Complainant filed a bunch of postal life insurance premium receipt commencing from dated 29.09.2007 being premium for September, 2007, dated 04.04.2008 for November, 2007 for Rs.117/- dated 09.04.2008 and on different dates of which the details is given in the complaint up to April, 2016 dated 06.06.2016 for Rs.489/-. Thus a total sum of Rs.11,680/- was deposited.
Annexure-B discloses that the Complainant in order to redressal of his grievance submitted letter to the senior Post Master which was received on 18.06.19. In the said letter the Complainant categorically claimed that he had submitted a Post Office pass book for RPLI bearing account No.R-WB-SG-EA-2507285/10/07 which was lost. Despite thorough searching she could not trace out it. Thereafter she lodged complaint to the OP Post Office. Having received the said written complaint the OP put an endorsement on the left side of that application admitting that the contents of the said petition was true and they wished all round welfare of the Complainant.
Having found no redressal of her grievance the Complainant again submitted another letter to the senior SPO on 10.09.20 wherefrom it is revealed that the Complainant stated inter alia that about how her book was taken by the OP but refused to accept the premium on the ground of pass book being not available with the Post Office. It was also alleged in the said letter that the Complainant was moving to that Post Office from 3 to 5 years but the Post Office could not return her pass book. Thereafter the Complainant again filed another application with reference to her earlier letter dated 10.09.2020 with a prayer for redressal of her grievance.
Thus the document filed by the Complainant discloses that she moved the OP for redressal of her grievance time and again but the OP remained silent without given any reply to the letters. Consequently, the Complainant filed an application for specific form for revival of RPLI policy.
Save and accept a casual denial in their written statement the O.Ps could not produce any document to discard the said aforesaid specific allegation of the Complainant.
It is also transferred from the copy of the G.D.E entry filed by the Complainant to IC, Haldibari P.S. on 04.03.19 wherein she alleged that the pass book of RPLI with Bagribarihat Post Office policy No.R-WB-SG-EA-2507285/10/07 was lost from the Post Office with a request to take appropriate legal steps.
Thus the Complainant left no stone unturned for getting appropriate relief from the postal authority as well as legal authority like local Police Station. But nobody could redress her grievance.
Finally the OP appears to have decided to refund the RPLI premium provisional policy in the name of the Complainant on the ground that it was not accepted by the department of post. In the said premium returned document being Annexure-B, it is stated that the premium collected is her by refunded to the proponent on the strength of credit certificate provided by the BPM due verified by the ASPOs, Jalpaiguri.
It is important to consider that in the said refund letter no reason is cited or no explanation is given as to why the said RPLI policy of the Complainant Parbati Roy was not accepted by the department of post.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant therefore alleged that the OP acted whimsically and in order to cover up their negligence they were compelled to refund the RPLI premium money without any interest.
The argument has reasonable force in as much as the said letter of the OP bearing No. L-1/PLI/RPLI- Complaint dated Jalpaiguri 29.10.21 issued by senior SPO with a copy to the Complainant alongwith other wherein a sum of Rs.12,051/- was refunded to the Complainant on the ground of non-acceptance of the said policy.
After assessing entire evidence in the case record it transpires that the OP could not advance any evidence denying the contents of the document in a very casual and evasive manner.
During cross-examination the OP asked about the date of opening of the account in reply to which the Complainant answered yes.
It is fact that the Complainant could not say the exact date, but the document filed by the OP clearly suggests that the Complainant opened an account for RPLI against which the Complainant finally refunded his money.
The OP during cross-examination challenged the identity of the Complainant but the refund money was granted in the name of the Complainant who filed this case . So, the OP has no right to challenge the identity of the Complainant.
The question as to pandemic period is irrelevant in this case.
The OP also alleged that the Complainant made out a new case in her letter dated 10.09.20 Annexure-E by alleging that her pass book was lost.
There is nothing illegality in not raising the said plea before the Police Authority because the G.D.E entry itself discloses some cause of action for enquiry into the matter.
The OP also took some flimsy ground about date of taking her pass book to the Post Office.
In fact the OP never replied to the complaint letter of the Complainant filed to the OP and as such the said plea before this Commission is absolutely new and no leg to stand.
The OP also questioned as to after how many years the said complaint was filed to the Post Office.
The documents like different complaint letters to the OP disclose that the Complainant continued her grievance as a reasonable interval before the OP for long time but the OP preferred not to reply to any of her letters. In fact the OP kept the Complainant in dark about steps taken by them.
The OP also pleaded in evidence during cross-examination that as per Post Office record Complainant deposited premium up to April, 2016.
It is clearly an admission about deposit of premium.
The OP thereafter pleaded that the Complainant did not contact with the OP from 3/4 years and first application was on 18.06.19 but her policy pass book had already been lapsed. She did not try to submit proper document within specified time for revival of her policy.
This defence plea in cross-examination is beyond the defence case. However there is nothing to show through any documents by the OP that they ever informed the Complainant to submit the document for revival of the RPLI policy. So the plea of the OP that they called on the Complainant several times for revival of the policy is absolutely not supported by any documents. Therefore the defence plea fails.
The other defence plea disclosed in the cross-examination are beyond pleadings and irrelevant to the present case. In fact the OP failed to establish that an old rustic lady aged about more than 50 years would file the false complaint against the OP to harass them in as much as the OP is a public sector undertaking.
There is nothing to show that the Complainant acted fraudulently against the OP because the OP indirectly admitted the allegation of the Complainant by refunding his RPLI policy money without showing any reason or explanation. Annexure-B is the best document which clearly exposes the indolence of the OP.
Thus after assessing the entire evidence on record it stands well proved that the OP acted in a manner with the Complainant which tantamount to deficiency in service.
In the back drop of the discussion made herein above vis-à-vis the observation made therein the Commission comes to the findings that the Complainant successfully proved the case against the OP.
Accordingly Point No. 2 & 3 are answered in affirmative and goes in favour of the Complainant. Consequently, the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/52/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The Complainant Smt. Parbati Roy do get an award for a sum of Rs.11,680/- towards premium amount with up to date interest from the date of first premium paid till the date of repayment @ 6% per annum, Rs.1 Lakh towards deficiency in service and mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The O.Ps are directed to supply the original pass book or in the alternative if it is not found a duplicate pass book of the OP Post Office in the name of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the Final Order. The O.Ps are further directed jointly and/ or severally to refund the said sum of Rs.1,21,680/- (Rupees One Lakh twenty one thousand six hundred eighty) only within 30 days from the date of passing this order failing which the Complainant shall be entitled to recover the said money alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing Final Order till the date of realisation. The O.P. No.1 & 2 are jointly and/ or severally liable towards the aforesaid award.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
