Date of Filing: 01-03-2017 Date of Final Order: 27-02-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Sri Mahesh Chandra Roy (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant), has filed a case against the Postmaster, Petla Branch Post Office, Dinhata and Superintendent, Cooch Behar Head Post Office, Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant opened one Postal Life Insurance Policy from the OP No.1 on 31.03.2004 vide Policy No.R-WB-SG-EA-12397 and the date of maturity was 31.03.2021.The Complainant regularly paid monthly premium during the period from 31.03.2004 to 07.05.2015 and surrendered the Policy before maturity as she needed money but the OPs refused to make payment of the deposited amount and the interest. The Complainant also lost all papers except Pass Book, for which she lodged GDE with Dinhata P.S vide Dinhata PS G.D.E. No.340 of 2015 dated 03.10.15 and deposited the same with the OPs. In spite of that, the OPs did not pay any amount to the Complainant for her surrendered Postal Life Insurance Policy. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant sent one Lawyer’s notice dated 24.06.16 to the OP No.2 but of no result. The Complainant also filed an application to the Regional Office of the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Cooch Behar but the OPs did not turn up. Hence, the Complainant filed the case against the OPs praying for compensation amounting to Rs.96,825/-.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 put their appearance by filing w/v on 24.10.17 contending that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer according to the CP Act, 1986. The specific case of the OPs is that the Complainant opened one Postal Life Insurance Policy, being No. R-WB-SG-EA-12897 for sum assured Rs.1 lakh and monthly premium was Rs.495/- and he deposited the premium up-to 07.05.15. Thereafter, she submitted an application for surrender of the policy along with original premium receipts with a copy of GDE regarding loss of original policy on 03.10.15 at Petla Branch Post Office. On receipt of the documents, it was forwarded to the Office of the Postmaster General by the Superintendent of Head Post Office, Cooch Behar on 28.10.15 for sanction of surrendered value. In the meantime, Department of Posts issued an order for de-centralization of PLI/RPLI work from Superintendent of Post Office to Central Processing Centre, Cooch Behar Head Office and migration of existing data of old PLI/RPLI policies to online MC Camish software, all works suspended after 21.11.15 and finally all data migrated in the month of December, 2015. Thereafter Central Processing Centre, Cooch Behar Head Office started functioning of PLI/RPLI work and as the original policy was not received, the case was returned by the Office of the Postmaster General for submission of one bond through the CPC Cooch Behar Head Office. After receipt of the case, the concerned Branch Postmaster contacted with the Complainant over phone for early submission of Indemnity Bond without which no action was possible for settlement of the case. The Branch Postmaster, Petla Branch Post Office received the original premium receipt bond along with a copy of GDE on 14.06.16 for re-submission along with Indemnity Bond and handed over the original premium book to the insured on 15.06.16 under receipt. Thereafter, the insured submitted Indemnity Bond and the same was received by the Superintendent of Post Offices on 14.02.17. After receipt of the Bond at CPC, Cooch Behar Head Office, the same had already been forwarded to the Inspector of Post Offices, Dinhata Sub-Division on 10.03.17 for verification with instruction to complete the Indemnity Bond in all respect at the time of verification and a copy of the letter was forwarded to the insured with request to complete the Indemnity Bond and the insured had not yet deposited the requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy bond. The Complainant did not cooperate with the OPs for completing the process so that the surrendered value might be given to the Complainant. The O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Complainant has submitted that Complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he had opened a Postal Life Insurance Policy with the OP No.1 on 30.03.2004 vide Policy No.R-WB-SG-EA-12897 and the date of maturity was 30.03.2021. Admittedly, the Complainant was regular in making payment of premium @ Rs.285/- per month from 30.03.2004 to 07.05.15.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps raised objection stating that the case is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer according to the CP Act, 1986. Having heard the Ld. Agents of both sides and on careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the Complainant is a consumer of the Ops in terms of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant submitted that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps stated nothing on this point. We have gone through the written complaint, w/v, evidence on affidavit and the documents submitted by both sides. On a careful consideration over the matter, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of the District Forum. Thus, this point is disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the OPs as the Complainant took one Postal Life Insurance Policy on payment of regular premiums. It was argued that the OPs had deficiency in service as they did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant regarding payment of surrendered value of the Post Life Insurance Policy.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OPs submitted that the Complainant had lost his original Policy Certificate, for which he lodged GD with Dinhata P.S. on 07.09.15. It was argued that the Complainant did not submit Indemnity Bond and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate. It was argued that the Indemnity Bond duly filled-in and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate were the pre-conditions for settlement of the claim of the Complainant. It was contended that the OPs would process the case on receipt of Indemnity Bond duly filled-in and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate and the process would take at least 15 days to complete the process. It was urged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs but the claim of the Complainant could not be settled due to non-cooperation of the Complainant. He contends that the OPs will settle the claim of the Complainant on receipt of Indemnity Bond duly filled-in and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate.
We have gone through the written complaint, w/v, evidence, written argument and documents on record. We have also considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant opened one Postal Life Insurance Policy being No.R-WB-SG-EA-12397 and he surrendered his Postal Life Insurance Policy on 03.10.15. Admittedly, the complainant is entitled to get some amount against his surrendered Postal Life Insurance Policy. It is evident from para 5 of the evidence of the OPs that the Branch Postmaster, Petla received the original premium receipt along with a copy of GDE on 14.06.16 for re-submission along with Indemnity Bond and handed over the original premium book under receipt and thereafter, the insured submitted the Indemnity Bond which was incomplete for issuance of duplicate policy certificate and after receipt of the Indemnity Bond at CPC, Cooch Behar H.O., the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Post Offices, Dinhata Sub-Division on 10.03.17 for verification with instruction to complete the Indemnity Bond in all respect at the time of verification and the copy of the letter forwarded to the insured with a request to complete the Indemnity Bond. The Complainant has not denied the above facts. It was not the case of the Complainant that he had already submitted his Indemnity Bond duly filled-in and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate. It is quite natural that the duplicate policy certificate is necessary for processing the claim of the Complainant as the original certificate is lost. Therefore, we find that the Complainant has not yet submitted Indemnity Bond and the requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate.
We find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs but it may be a fact that there is a communication gap between the Complainant and the OPs for which the Complainant has suffered much and the claim has not been settled even after lapse of more than 2 years. We think that neither of the parties will be prejudiced and the purpose of the Complainant will be served if the OPs are directed to settle the claim of the Complainant within a reasonable period of time after receipt of complete Indemnity Bond duly filled in and requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate.
Reasons for delay : the case was filed on 01.03.17 and admitted on 16.03.17. The OPs put their appearance and filed W/V on 24.10.17. This Forum has taken endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible as per Section 13(3A) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and it will be evident from the day to day orders.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds in part.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs without cost. The Complainant is directed to submit Indemnity Bond duly filled in as per requirement and the requisite fees to the OP No.1 by one month for issuance of duplicate policy certificate.
The OPs are directed to settle the claim of the Complainant by one month from the date of receipt of the complete Indemnity Bond and the requisite fees for issuance of duplicate policy certificate from the Complainant.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
