Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/44/2017

Pushpagiri Harshitha, D/o Late P.Kulasekhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of Post Offices - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Chandra Sekhar

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                          Filing Date: 10-07-2017                                                                                                                 Order Date: 12-10-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

 

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWELTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

C.C.No.44/2017

Between

1. Pushpagiri Harshitha, D/o. Late. P. Kulasekhar,

          Hindu, aged about 22 years, Elder daughter,

          Student, unmarried, Aadhar Card No. 653586176473,

2. Pushpagiri Puneeth, S/o. Late. P. Kulasekhar,

          Hindu, aged about 20 years, Younger Son,

         Student, unmarried, Aadhar Card No. 755890995379,

 

3. Pushpagiri Poojitha, D/o. Late. P. Kulasekhar,

Hindu, aged about 20 years, Younger daughter,

Student, unmarried, Aadhar Card No. 582412647537

 

All are residing at Door No. 1-128/1, Bhavani Nagar,

Chandragiri, Chittoor District.                                                   … Complainants

 

And

 

The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Tirupati Region, Tirupati – 517501,

Chittoor District., Andhra Pradesh.

 

The Director of Accounts (Postal),

A.P. Circle, Dhak Sadan,

Hyderabad – 500 001.

State of Telangana.

 

K. Padma (Divorcee), Hindu, aged about 50 years,

Employee, Working in Postal Department, Head Post Office,

Tirupati, Chittoor District

.

P. Varalakshmi, W/o. Late. P. Kulasekhar,

Hindu, aged about 50 years, House wife,

Residing at Door No. 1-128/1, Bhavani Nagar,

Chandragiri, Chittoor District.

 

(Opposite party No.3 and 4 impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No.14/2018,

  dated: 20-06-2018)                                                             

                                                                                                … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.09.2018 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. C.S. Chandrasekahr, counsel for the complainants and Sri. K. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the opposite party No.1, opposite Party No.2 is remained exparte, opposite party No.3 is absent and party in person for opposite party No.4 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT(FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying to directing the opposite party to settle the death benefits of

Rs. 9,00,000/- of their deceased father P. Kulasekhar DCRG/GPF/CGEGIS/PRF to the complainants and to pay interest at 18 percent per annum on death benefits from the date of their father till realization and to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and further to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         2. Initially the complaint was filed against the opposite party No.1 and 2 but subsequently the opposite parties 3 and 4 were impleaded as per orders passed in I.A.No.20/2018 dt: 20.06.2018.

         The opposite party No.3 is diversed wife of the deceased P. Kulasekhar whereas opposite party No.4 is second wife of P. Kulasekhar amended in copy of complaint was filed which contents following averments:-  the complainants are the children of Late     P. Kulasekhar who was deceased employee of Postal Department. He worked as Ex-In-Charge SBCO, Srikalahasti HO of Tirupati Division and died on 20.12.2015 while in service leaving behind him his wife P. Varalakshmi and 3 children as his legal heirs.  In the Form-1, the nomination was made for the death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits by father of the complainant’s during his life time in the name of the complainant’s mother P. Varalakshmi and the complainants with equal share. So also nomination for G.P.F., EGIS and APPRFS were made. P. Kulasekhar during his life time made regular contribution/payments from his salary for the Provident Fund, Employees General Insurance and APPRFS. Thus, he will come under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. As per the Department Rules, the department is bound to settle all dues within 90 days from the date of death of the employee. The complainants made a representation and also approached the Department in person in this regard, but the opposite party with-held the death benefits of the deceased employee without settling the same in favour of the complainants. On 24.09.1998 father of the complainant Mr. P. Kulasekhar had taken divorce from the 3^rd opposite party by filing H.M.O.P. No.67 of 1998 on the file of Family Court at Tirupati. Later P. Varalakshmi (OP. No.4) has become wife of the deceased employee. The deceased P. Kulasekhar furnished revised nominations to the opposite parties 1 and 2 showing complainants are his nominees and as such they are entitled to receive the death benefits of the deceased. On 27.01.2017 the complainants made a representation to the opposite parties requesting for early settlement of terminal benefits of their father but there was no response from the opposite parties. On 12.04.2017 they caused legal notice to the opposite parties demanding them for settlement of DCRG benefits of their deceased father. The opposite parties gave evasive reply on 21.04.2017. Without valid reasons, the opposite parties are rejected their claim illegally and the same amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainants suffered mental agony due to the attitude of the opposite parties. The mother of the complainants had endorsed no objection for receiving the benefits by the complainants in the form of letter to the department. The complainants therefore state that opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainants towards compensation due to deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complaint.  

        4. Opposite party No.1 filed the written version contending as follows:-  the allegations mentioned in Para 1 to 8 of  the complaint of denied. It is admitted that the complainants are the children of Late. P. Kulasekhar who expired on 20.12.2015 as per the family details furnished by him on 08.09.2010 while in service. As seen from   service book, it has a fact that, P. Kulasekhar funished revised nomination for death-cum-retirement –gratuity on 10.11.2010 in favour of  P. Varalakshmi naming her as his wife with full shares and nominated is three children (complainants) as alternate nominees with equal shares and same was forwarded to the within SBO of Tirupati for safe custody. While the family pension case was submitted the D.A.(P), Hyderabad has returned the family pension case stating that the marriage with P. Varalakshmi is a void marriage, as the second marriage took place during the subsistent of first marriage which is considered as invalid as per Hindu Marriage Act and the claimant is not eligible for grant of family pension abinitio. Further, the nomination for gratuity/GPF/CGEGIS were made in favour of Smt. P. Varalakshmi, naming her as his wife of the deceased. Since the marriage itself is void, the status of wife does not subsist making the nominations as invalid and the case was treated ‘no nomination case’.  

          The D.A.(P), Hyderabad  has opined that the case has to be treated as a ‘no nomination case’ and thus the complainants are not entitled for death benefits of the deceased employee. However as per the directions received from D.A (P), Hyderabad opposite party has directed the Inspector of Posts, Tirupati West Sub Division to collect the claim papers from all the three children of the deceased. But they have not furnished claim papers and as such they are not entitled for the death benefits of the deceased employee.

        5. It is admitted, the elder daughter of deceased employee P. Harshitha had presented to opposite party requesting for statements of terminal benefits in her favour vide representation dt: 27.01.2017 which was received by their office on 02.02.2017 and the same was forwarded to D.A (P), Hyderabad and got reply that deceased marriage with opposite party No.3 is a void marriage since her replace during the subsistent of first marriage which is considered as invalid as per Hindu Marriage Act. And so, the complainant is not the eligible for grant of family pension abinitio. The nominations for the gratuity/GPF/CGEGIS were made in favour of P. Varalakshmi as wife of deceased and nomination is held to be invalid as her marriage is void as per Hindu Marriage Act and the said was informed to P. Harshitha vide office letter dated 21.4.2017. The ‘no objection letter’ stated to have been endorsed by said P. Varalakshmi was not received by this opposite party and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part. Similarly, it is not disputed that P. Harshitha again represented to opposite party No.1 on 27.01.2017 making similar request and the same was received on 02.02.2017 by opposite party office and was forwarded to the D.A (P), Hyderabad and same was returned with an endorsement that marriage with Smt. P. Varalakshmi is a void marriage and the claimant is not eligible for grant of family pension. It is treated as ‘no nomination case’ and the same is informed to Harshitha by office letter dated: 21.04.2017. It is also admitted complainants issued legal  notice dt: 12.04.2017 to opposite party No.1 and also to D.A (P), Hyderabad for which the D.A (P), Hyderabad directed to opposite party No.1 to collect the claim papers from the children of the deceased and forwarded to the same to them vide letter dt: 24/25-04-2017. But the complainants failed to furnish the claim papers and the same was reported to D.A (P), Hyderabad on 18.08.2017 therefore, there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party No.1.

        6.  Opposite party No.2   is remained exparte.

        7.  The opposite party No.4 filed written version stating that she has no objection with regard to the claim made by the complainants who are children of opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3did not contests the case. In the implead petition in        I.A. 14 /2018  the divorce to wife of deceased P. Kulasekhar reported no counter for impleading her and P. Varalakshmi as opposite party No.3 and 4. The conduct of opposite party No.3 shows that, she is not interested in the claim made by the complainants since she divorce decree granted in 1998 by III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

         8.  On complainants behalf PW-1 filed evidence of affidavit Ex:A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of opposite party No.1 as RW-1 filed chief evidence affidavit and opposite party No.4 filed chief affidavit as RW-2, Ex:B1 to B6 were marked by RW-1.

         9.  The Point for consideration is:-

               Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2? If so, to what extent, the complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought?

        10.Point:-   Ex:A1 shows that P.Kulasekhar died on 20.12.2015, Ex:A2 is letter addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.4 who is second wife of deceased P. Kulasekhar stating that her marriage with late P. Kulasekhar is void marriage and she is not eligible grant of family pension abinitio and that the case has to be treated as ‘no nomination case’. Exs:A3, A4 and A5 are the birth certificates of complainants 1 to 3 respectively who are the children of deceased P.Kulasekhar through opposite party No.4. Ex:A6 is bunch of three (3) Adhar cards of complainants 1 to 3 respectively. Ex:A7 is a family members certificates showing opposite party No.4 and complainants 1 to 3 have family members of deceased P. Kulasekhar. Ex:A8 is pay slip of deceased P. Kulasekhar for the month of November, 2015. Exs: A9, A11 and A12 are the nominations forms submitted by P. Kulasekhar nominating his wife (Opposite party No.4) to receive retirement benefits. Ex:A10 is form was submitted by P. Kulasekhar giving details of his family members wherein he mentioned the names of complainants 1 to 3 and opposite party No.4. Ex: A13 is decree passed in H.M.O.P. No.67 of 1998 dt: 24.09.1998 by III Additional District Judge (FAC), Family Court, Tirupati as per which the deceased P. Kulasekhar was granted divorce against opposite party No. 3 herein dissolving their marriage.

        11. Ex: B1 is the nomination for Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity in form No.1 submitted by P.Kulasekhar wherein which shows that opposite party No. 4 is his nominee and the same was submitted on 26.09.1992. Ex:B2 is letter addressed by Superintendent Post Offices, Tirupati to Inspector Posts, Tirupati West Sub Division,Tirupati asking him to collect family pension forms from all the three children of the deceased and forward this forms of their office. Ex:B3 is letter addressed by complainant No.1 to Superintendent Post Offices, Tirupati Region, Tirupati stating that, they are eligible to receive DCRG benefits of their father P.Kulasekhar and that the documents are enclosed  for taking necessary actions dt: 27.01.2017. Ex: B4 is letter passed by Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati dt: 15.12.2017 to the effect that opposite party No.4 is not eligible for grant of family pension abinitio. Further the nominations for Gratuity/GPF/CGEGIS were made in favour of opposite party No.4 naming the relationship as wife. Since the marriage itself is void, the status of wife does not subsist making nominees as invalid and the case has treated as ‘no nomination case’. Ex:B5 is legal notice issued by complainants to opposite party No.1 and 2 on 12.04.2015 stating that the department is bound to settle all the dues within 90 days from the date of death of the deceased employee as per Department Rules but, the claimants are not settled. Ex:B6 is letter addressed by the Assistant Accounts Officer Postal Section to Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati Division, Tirupati dt: 24.04.2017 stating that asking them to furnish certain documents.

        12. On the basis of the above documentary evidence and the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1 and 2 the counsel for the complainant contended that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in processing the claims of the complainants in respect of DCRG of deceased employee P. Kulasekhar. It is not in dispute that                P. Kulasekhar died leaving behind opposite party No.4 and complainants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Ex:A7 the family members certificates shows their names as family members of deceased P. Kulasekhar. There is no dispute that opposite party No.3 is first wife of deceased but on filing divorce case by P.Kulasekhar the Civil court dissolved marriage between P.Kulasekhar and opposite party No.3 vide Ex: A13. It is also not in dispute that before the dissolution of marriage, the said P. Kulasekhar had married opposite party No.4 and she gave birth to complainants 1 to 3. It is also not in dispute that the said P.Kulasekhar cancelled the earlier nomination in favour of his first wife and submitted refuse nomination in favour of opposite party No.4. Ex:B1 to B6 are also not in dispute.

        13.   It is seen from Ex:B3 that the complainant No.1 had submitted certificate documents on 27.01.2017 for receiving DCRG benefits and an order was passed by on 15.12.2017 by Superintendent of Post Offices holding that opposite party No.4 is not eligible to claim family pension and that the nominations are invalid and treated as ‘no nomination case’.

                The contentions of the complainants is that, though documents are submitted opposite party No.1 and 2 failed to settle the claim and it amounts to deficiency of service on their part. As per law, two Hindus cannot contract marriage after the enforcement of Hindu Marriage Act, if any of them is having a  living spouse, the marriage would be a nullity and would also not be protected under the Conduct Rules, as well as, the pension rules, therefore the second wife P. Varalakshmi marriage is permissible under the Personal Law, but in the case of Hindus the second wife will have no right, whatsoever, as the law prohibits second marriage, as long as, the Government servant has a spouse who alive. Probably the opposite party No.1 passed above order keeping in view of the legal possession in respect of Hindus spouse. But in the extent case on hand, no doubt the first wife is alive but she is seized wife of deceased employee soon after dissolution of their marriage in 1998 by the Civil Court as per Ex:A13. The second wife who is opposite party No.4 stepped in the place of opposite party No.4 i.e. divorced wife into the family fold. The refused nomination was submitted by P.Kulasekhar in 1992 subsequent to the dissolution of marriage by Civil Court. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 ought to have processed the claim of the complainants who are children of deceased P.Kulasekhar through opposite party No.4 in fact opposite party No.3 is impleaded in this case and she did not attend the court and contests the matter. Opposite party No.4 filed written arguments and written verion stating no-objection to allow this petition and settle the claim in favour of complainants 1 to 3. The earlier nomination given by P. Kulasekhar in favour of his first wife was super seeded inview of Ex:B1.

         14.  With regard to the jurisdiction of this forum to entertain this application at the stage of registering the case, the office has taken objection placing on the following decisions and directed the office to register the case.

                 In view of Sec. 2 (1) (b) (v) and Sec.2 (1) (d) of C.P. Act, 1986 and in view of the Judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1(2017) CPJ 77 (NC) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another Vs Subhash Chandra Benerjee & Another and another decision of the Hon’ble State Commission of U.P. reported in      1 (2017) CPJ 62 (UP) Senior Post Master & Another Vs Vinay Kumar Mishra & Another.

                When once, the refused nomination is in order, there is no reason why the DCRG claim was not settled so far. We therefore of the opinion that these amounts to deficiency of service but we are inclined to held that ends of justice will be made.

                 In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 and 2 and dismissed against the opposite parties 3 and 4 as no relief is claimed against them. The opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to settle the death benefits of deceased P.Kulasekhar which is to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) as prayed for, further we directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainants and further sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above order shall be complied within two months failing which, amounts granted shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order ill realization.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of October, 2018.

                                                                                                                

 Lady Member                                                                                     President (FAC)

C.C.No.44/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1: Pushpagiri Puneeth (Evidence Affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1: G. Srinivasa Murthy (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-2: P. Varalakshmi (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Death Certificate of Late P. Kulasekhar, Dt: 28.12.2015.
	Photo copy of reply received under RTI Act from CPIO/Admn-I Section, O/o. the Director of Accounts(Postal), A.P.Circle, Hyderabad vide letter No.592/Admn-I/RTI/C.5 of 11/2016, dated 12.01.2017 addressed to Smt P. Varalakshmi wife of Late P. Kulasekhar.
	Photo copy of Birth Certificate of Pushpagiri Harshitha issued by Registrar (Birth & Death), Grama Panchayat, Chandragiri on Dt: 23.06.2017.
	Photo copy of Birth Certificate of Pushpagiri Poojitha issued by issued by Registrar (Birth & Death), Grama Panchayat, Chandragiri on Dt: 23.06.2017.
	Photo copy of Birth Certificate of Pushpagiri Puneeth issued by Registrar (Birth & Death), Grama Panchayat, Chandragiri on Dt: 23.06.2017.
	Photo copies of Aadhaar Cards 3 in Number.
	Family Member Certificate in Original ( Mee Seva Copy). Dt: 07.01.2016.
	True copy of Pay Slips 2 in Number.
	Photo copy of Nomination for Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (FORM 1), Dt: 20.02.2014.
	Photo copy of Nominee Details of Family Members (FORM 3), Dt: 20.02.2014.
	Photo copy of FORM No.8 (Nomination for Benefits Under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980). Dt: 20.02.2014.
	Photo copy of Form of Nomination for GPF. Dt: 20.02.2014.
	Photo copy of Decree & Judgement , H.M.O.P.No.67 of 1998. Dt: 24.09.1998.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copy of Revised nomination for Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity(When the Govt. Servent has a Family and Wishes to Nominate one Member, Or More than one Member Thereof). Dt: 12.10.2000.
	Attested true copy of Letter received from the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Tirupati to the Inspector of Posts, Tirupati West Sub Division, Tirupati-517 501. Dt: 04.05.2017.
	Attested true copy of Representation by the Complainants. Dt: 27.01.2017.
	Attested true copy of letter issued by the opposite party. Dt: 21.04.2017.
	Attested true copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainants to opposite party No.1. Dt: 12.04.2017.
	Attested true copy of Letter from Asst. Accounts Officer, Office of the Director of Accounts (POSTAL), A.P.Circle, Hyderabad-1. Dt: 24.04.2017.

 

   President (FAC)

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainants, 

                  2) The Opposite party 1 to 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.