Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/49

Sri Prasenjit Chakraborty, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 49/ 2016.                                          Date.     6  .    3    . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Prasenjit Chakraborty, 2(o), Girls BN. NCC, Post box No. 36 Po: Rayagada     Dist.Rayagada, State:  Odisha.   Cell No.  7894806060                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Sr. Superintendent of Post office, Koraput Division, Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.

2. The Chief Post Master General, CPMG, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar.

3.The Addl. Director General, APS(PLI cell), Pin No. 908716, C/O: 56, APO, New Delhi.

                                                                                                ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Self.

•  

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment  PLI maturity amount bearing policy No. APS- 862204-L  which was  matured on Dt. 13.11.2014.

 

On being Noticed to the O.Ps the O.P. No.1 appeared  in person before the forum  and stated that being the operational head of Koraput postal Division is competent  to file the reply on behalf of all the   O.Ps   inter alia filed   written  version refuting the allegation made against them. The O.Ps taking one and other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  written version filed by the O.Ps it is revealed that  undisputedly  the complainant  was the PLI policy holder  bearing No. APS-862204-1  inter alia the due date of maturity  of his PLI policy was  13.11.2014.  The complainant had submitted his application for sanction of maturity value of the  PLI policy held by him to the O.P. No.1  on Dt. 3.11.2014 with relevant documents along  with   the  claim application   form, and the complainant submitted  his pay slips from  1/2014 to 09/2014  which indicated recovery of PLI premium from his salary for the  said months.  But the letter of Addl. Director General of APS submitted by the  complainant depicted   that the PLI premia were recovered   up  to  January, 2014 only.  Due to production of such  antithetical documents   regarding PLI premia recovery from the salary of the complainant, the APS was requested  for clarification on the issue. Due  to this anomaly, the insurant was advised to produce  a fresh Disbursing officer’s certificate  with clear mention the PLI   recoveries for early settlement of his claim. On telephonic reminder, a DOC was received from the  O.P. No.3 vide his letter Dt. 19.11.2014 which was ambiguous too.  There upon the to supply a correct DOC vide this office letter Dtd. 28.11.2014 phonic and electronic reminders were issued to the  O.P. No.3 on Dt. 31.12.2014  by the O.P. No.1.   Due to  delay in getting the DOC, the O.P.No.1 submitted the claim case to the  O.P. No.2 vide his letter Dt. 7.1.2015 for needful  action. The correct disbursing officers certificate  was received from the  O.P. No.3 on Dt. 27.1.2015.  The same was forwarded to the O.P. No.2  and returned the case documents to the O.P.No. 1 which was received by  him on Dt. 9.2.2015. After scrutiny of the claim case, the O.P. No.1 had issued sanctin  order Dtd. 11.2.2015  accordingly to the Postmaster Rayagada H.O. for necessary drawal and disbursement (copies of the which is filed herewith marked as Ananexure-I.  The  sanctioned amount   of Rs. 1,35,051.00 has since been paid to the complainant on Dt. 17.2.2015 at Rayagada Head post office ( copies of the  same is annexed   herewith  as Annexure No. 2.

This forum observed the O.P. after receipt of notice from the Forum promptly  had paid the  maturity amount to the complainant  and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  The present case in hand the complainant is not entitled any compensation from the O.P.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

Accordingly the case stands disposed off.  There is no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this                 6^th.day  of   March, 2018.

 

 

 

Member.                                   Member.                                           President