Complainant in
C. C. No.67/2017: Smt. Subasini Padhy, 50 years,
W/o. Sri Subash Chandra Padhy.
Complainant in
C. C. No.68/2017: Sri Subash Chandra Padhy, 58 years,
S/o. late Ramachandra Padhy.
Complainant in
C. C. No.69/2017: Sri Kanhu Charan Padhy, 25 years,
S/o. Sri Subash Chandra Padhy.
(At-Nilakamberu, PO-Balimela, Dist-Malkangiri (Address for all the above complainants).
Vrs.
Opp. Parties : 1. The Post Master, Nilakamberu B. O.,
At/PO-Balimela, Dist-Malkangiri.
2. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
At/PO-Jeypore, Dist-Koraput.
(The Ops are common in all the above cases).
-x-
For complainant : Sri Brundaban Padhy, Advocate.
For OPs. 1 & 2 : SSPO, Koraput Division, Jeypore.
-x-
The complainants have filed the above cases against the same Ops with similar allegations and cause of actions. Hence the above cases are clubbed together and heard for a common order.
1. The brief facts of the cases of the complainants are that they have availed Postal Life Insurance (PLI) scheme from OP.1 Post Office and have deposited monthly premiums, the details of which are given below:
Name Case No. Premium Amnt. Deposit Period Total deposits
Subasini Padhy C.C.67/17 Rs.1050/- 6/09 to 10/16 Rs. 93, 450/-
Subash Ch. Padhy C.C.68/17 Rs.1440/- 6/09 to 10/16 Rs.1, 28,160/-
Kanhu Ch. Padhy C.C.69/17 Rs. 290/- 5/10 to 10/16 Rs. 22,620/-
It is submitted that the OP.1 collected first premium of the policies and promised to supply necessary bonds soon to be issued by OP.2 but failed to do so. It submitted that on every date of premium their request to OP.1 for supply of bonds went in vain. It is further submitted that besides personal requests to OP.1 from time to time, the complainant – Subash Chandra Padhy also sent an RPAD letter dt.10.01.2017 to OP.2 to release the bonds but the Ops remained silent. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, they have filed the cases praying the Forum to direct the Ops to release their respective bonds to release maturity amount and to pay compensation and costs to the complainant as prayed for in their complaint petitions.
2. The Ops 1 & 2 filed similar counter in joint in all the cases admitting the Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) availed by the complainants and the deposits in their respective accounts. The Ops contended that due to missing of records they did not receive RPLI proposal forms of the complainants and hence policy number and documents could not be issued in their favour. It is further contended that the complainants deposited the premiums with OP.1 but have not bring the fact of non issuance of policy documents to the knowledge of OP.2 and hence they could not know the grievance of the complainants till October, 2016. The Ops also contended that on receipt of request along with premium receipts, they will refund the deposits but in absence of policy number they cannot sanction bonus in favour of the complainants. Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.
3. The complainants have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the A/R for the complainant as well as Ops and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainants have submitted their proposals before OP.1 for enrolment under RPLI scheme and have used to pay monthly premiums regularly till 10/2016 from their respective dates of enrolment under the scheme. The complainants stated that the OP.1 collected first premium and promised to supply necessary bonds to be issued by OP.2. The case of the complainants are that on every premium falling date till 10/2016 they approached the OP.1 to issue bonds but in vain and hence they got issued an RPAD letter on 10.1.2017 to OP.2 requesting release of bonds but to no action by OP.2.
5. The Ops in their counter stated that due to missing of record, they did not receive the RPLI proposal forms submitted by the complainants and hence bonds could not be issued. This contention of Ops does not sound good. At the time of proposal, the Ops must have ascertained the premiums, basing upon the date of birth of the insurants and then after only premiums will be fixed. The schemes itself say the maturity value as per the premiums fixed for a particular period. The said documents must be accompanied by proposal forms. Basing upon the premiums, bonds could have been issued in favour of the complainants. Further the documents so furnished by the complainants have been misplaced from the possession of Ops. In any case, proposal forms along with other documents also could have been procured from the complainants but the Ops did not do so. Further missing of documents at the office of Ops is not the mistake of the complainants and they should not suffer all along for the mistakes of the Ops.
6. The OP.2 stated that the complainants have not intimated the OP.2 regarding non issuance of policy bonds but from the record it was ascertained that the complainants have sent an RPAD letter dt.10.01.2017 to OP.2, the copy of which is available on record, requesting early dispatch of bonds. The OP.2 must have got it but did not prefer to say a single word regarding such request letter of the complainants. As such the OP.2 is trying to hide the facts by suppressing that letter. Further the OP.1 might have intimated the OP.2 regarding the plights of the complainants but the OP.2 is not disclosing its fault. Further the Ops could have asked the complainants to file fresh documents in case of such missing, so that bonds could have been issued before arising of any dispute. The Ops have also not done so. The Ops failed to file any document regarding maturity value of the policies which includes interest and bonus.
7. The Ops stated that they cannot pay bonus to the complainants as the policy bonds are not issued. This aspect of contention of Ops is wrong as because, bonus is fixed as per table and term of the scheme. When the policies are accepted by the Ops, the legitimate bonus is implied to the scheme. Hence the Ops cannot deny bonus in favour of the complainants.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, it was clearly ascertained that the complainants have regularly deposited the premiums and also approached the Ops repeatedly for getting their respective bonds till the date of maturity but the Ops in a very casual and irresponsible manner were dealing with the case of the complainants and this inaction of Ops in our opinion amounts to serious deficiency in service.
9. The policies of the complainants have matured on 10/2016 and they have deposited the premiums till the last instalment without any interruption as admitted by the Ops. Hence they are entitled to get the maturity value of their respective policies. Further the maturity amount of the complainants is lying with the Ops without use of the complainant and hence the maturity value certainly bears interest from the date of maturity till payment and that will do @ 6% p.a. Further the maturity value could not come to the use of the complainant and they also could not get their respective bonds in spite of efforts for which they must have suffered some mental agony. Due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainants have come up with the cases incurring some expenditure. Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and cost to each of the complainants will meet the ends of justice.
10. Hence ordered that the complaint petitions are allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to effect payment of maturity value of the policies in favor of the complainants. The OPs are further directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. on the maturity amount of the complainants from the date of maturity till actual payment and to pay Rs.10, 000/- to each of the complainants towards compensation and costs for sufferings sustained by them. The above directions are to be complied by both the Ops within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
