DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  24^th day of January, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 15/04/2021    

                         CC/77/2021

Mansoor M.,

S/o.Haneefa C.M.

Madhavam veedu,

Ummanazhi Post,

Pulappatta, Kadampazhipuram,

Palakkad – 678 632                                                    -                       Complainant

(Party in person)

                                                                                    Vs

1. Superintendent of Post,

Department of Post,

Govt.of India,

Ottapalam Division, Shornur,

Palakkad

2. Post Master General,

Department of Post,

Govt.of India,

Northern Region,

Kozhikkode – 673 011

3. Chief Post Master General,

Department of Post,

Govt.of India,

Kerala Circle, Trivandrum – 695 033                   -                       Opposite parties

            (By Authorised Officer)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. For the sake of brevity, unnecessary descriptions are avoided.  Complainant submitted a proposal form for availing an Endowment Policy floated and operated by the opposite parties on 13/09/2016. As per the Rules of opposite party, the complainant had to apply before he attained the age of 30 years for availing the policy for a period of 5 years, which would then become payable along with bonus when the complainant attained 35 years. Proposal was submitted 47 days prior to his date of birth which falls on 30^th of October. But the opposite party delayed the procedure for months altogether while statutorily the policy should have been issued within 15 days of submission of the proposal form. Such delay had caused his financial losses and played spoil sport with his financial planning for construction of a residential building. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
2. Opposite parties also conceded that there was a delay in the issuance of policy. To that extent there is no dispute. But the opposite parties contented that they had converted the policy into a 4 year period policy and provided allowable bonuses. And they also sought for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The following issues arise for consideration:

1.         Whether the complainant is entitled to have his policy period enhanced to 5 years for the purpose of receiving bonus?

2          Whether there is   deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

3.         Whether the complainant is barred by limitation?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

5.         Reliefs, if any?

4.                     Evidence of complainant comprised of Proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A12(series). Evidence of O.P. consisted of proof affidavit and Exts. B1 to B6. There was no oral evidence.

Issue No.1

5.         Factum of delay is not in dispute. One need not go any further than Exts.A12 (series) which are the documents received by the complainant based on an RTI query submitted by the complainant to come to a conclusion that there was gross irregularity on the part of the opposite parties.  In response to query No.2 regarding the enquiry carried out by the opposite party pertaining to the delay in issuance of policy to the complainant, the opposite party had handed over Report No. D17/Misc dated NIL at Mannarkkad on 5/7/2021 to the complainant. This report is a detailed description of what had transpired after the complainant had submitted his proposal. It took more than 4 months to issue the policy.  The report views the delay as heavy and software irregularities are termed as severe. The report also details the non co-operation on the part of some of the departments who are liable and responsible. 

6.         Hence the only question that needs answering concerns the period from which the policy issued to the complainant would take effect.

Intention of the complainant was to have a policy issued before his 30^th birthday. His birthday falls on 30^th day of October. In Ext. A1 proposal form, at clause 9, the complainant had opted age of maturity as 35 and Policy terms as 5 years. In clause 17 of Ext.A1 the agent has dated the proposal form as being made on 13/09/2016. As per Ext.B4 proceedings of opposite party 1 complainant’s proposal was indexed on 13/9/2016. The complainant has submitted the proposal 47 days preceding his birthday.   But the policy was accepted only on 1/1/2017.  The reason stated in Ext.B4 for taking up the policy to be of 4 years is that it was approved only on 1/1/2017.   Bonus would become payable only if the period of policy was 5 years.  

7.         In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to concede to the logic of the opposite parties that the coverage of policy will start only from 1/1/2017. Admittedly, as per Ext.A12 report, this delay of around 4 months was viewed as a major irregularity.  Taking 01/01/2017 as the start of the policy coverage tantamount to condoning major irregularities and lapses on the part of the staff of the opposite parties.  It is further to be observed that the opposite parties paid Rs.92,800/- by way of bonus to complainant only after receiving notice of this proceeding before this Commission.

8.         The opposite party had nowhere in their version objected to the allegation of the complainant that the policy is to be issued within 15 days from the date of submission of the proposal. The opposite parties had made no attempts whatsoever even to bring anything before this Commission that would touch upon the issue of delay in issuance of the policy. They have stirred clear of that topic. They kept harping on the fact that they had paid the bonus that the complainant is entitled to for a policy of 4 years period. Even considering that the procedural technicalities would require 30 days, the policy could have been issued on 13/10/2016. Complainant had filed his application 47 days prior to his attaining 30 years. Hence, irregularities on the part of the opposite parties have caused grave financial loss to the complainant, which in our view, is nothing short of gross deficiency in service. And condoning the irregularity of their staff for monetory benefit, nothing short of unfair trade practice and unjust and illegal enrichment. 

9.         Therefore we hold that the unilateral variance of the policy is illegal and that the complainant is entitled to the benefits of the policy for the complete term of 5 years.

            Issue No.2

10.       As already stated we hold that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in dealing with the policy cover of the complainant.  

Issue No.3

11.       Questions of statutory nature, like bar of limitation, are to be considered as preliminary issue. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was necessary to ascertain the veracity of pleadings and counter pleadings. Hence we felt that it was better to place this issue as the 3^rd one, as this placement would serve a better understanding of the facts.

12.       Ext. A4 is the letter of acceptance dated 06/02/2017 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A5 is a communication dated 16/3/2017 wherein the complainant has given vent to his grievance before the Deputy Divisional Manager, Office of Chief Post Master General, Trivandrum against the unilateral variance of the terms and conditions and the period of the policy. Thereafter no action is seen taken by the complainant as against the opposite party.  Going by Exts. A4 & A5 it is clear that the complainant had notice of the unilateral variance on 16/3/2017.

Resultantly, the period of limitation starts from 16/3/2017, at the latest.  The two year period for calculation of period of limitation ends with 16/3/2019. This complaint is filed on 15/04/2021, two years after the period of limitation.

13.       The next question to be considered is whether the complainant can avail the benefit of continuing cause of action.

Opposite parties had released Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant taking the termination of policy period as 01/01/2021. When the complainant raised complaint, the opposite parties, by way of Ext. A8 dated 18/01/2021, informed the complainant that his case was taken up for consideration by higher authorities.

It can be seen that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties started bearing fruit and the opposite parties generated unlawful gains when the opposite party disbursed the maturity amount without bonus. Even during 2021, when the maturity amount was paid, the complainant remained a victim of the unfair trade practice perpetrated by the opposite parties.

14.       When the opposite party enjoyed benefits of the illegal activities of its employees even after the period of limitation, a corresponding right to avail relief gets vested with the complainant. We, therefore, hold that there is a continuous cause of action.

15.       It can be seen from Ext. A2 series that even before the acceptance of the policy, the complainant had remitted and the opposite party had accepted substantial amounts as premium. In the natural course of events, a layman like the complainant cannot be expected to stand up on most occasions. One would be apprehensive of the loss he might incur or the financial necessities that overweigh concerns of legal rights. So we hold that the complainant, though he had not got the delay condoned as contemplated under the Act, had a perfectly valid explanation for filing the complaint belatedly. In such cases, it would not be in the interest of justice to harp on the technicalities of law to the disadvantage of a layman when he decides to fight against a Goliath like the opposite party.

Hence the complaint is maintainable after having been filed beyond the period of limitation.

Issue Nos.4 & 5

16.       The opposite party, a public sector enterprise, had shamelessly stooped low to protect the irregularities and lapses on the part of its employees. If not for the motivated attempts of the complainant, attempt of the opposite parties was to underplay the irregularities on the part of the staff who dealt with the case of the complainant. Even after production of Ext. A12 series, their attempt was to justify their erring employees. Apropos the findings above in Issues 1 and 2, we hold as herein below:       

A.         In the facts and circumstances of the case, we fix 13/10/2016 as the date of acceptance of the policy, the date being 30 days period after indexing the proposal of the complainant.

B.         The opposite parties are hereby directed to reschedule the policy accounts of the complainant taking 13/10/2016 as the date of acceptance.  

C.         The complainant is entitled to 10% interest on Rs.92,800/- from 13/10/2016 till 28/7/21.

D.         The complainant is entitled to 10% interest on balance amount due (if any) over and above the amounts that were already paid.

E.         Compensation for mental pain and agony      ::         Rs.    50,000/-

F.          Compensation for Deficiency in service         ::          Rs.    50,000/-

G.         Compensation for unfair trade practice        ::          Rs.    50,000/-

H.         Cost                                                                 ::          Rs.    20,000/-

The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to a solatium of Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof till the date of final payment of the amount stated above. 

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 24^th  day of  January, 2023.

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

                                                            Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

         Sd/-                                                                   Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   - Copy of  proposal form

 Ext.A2  – Original of five receipts of acceptance of premium       

Ext.A3  -  Copy of communication dated 2/3/17 from complainant to opposite party

Ext.A4  -  Copy of acceptance letter dated 6/2/2017

Ext.A5 –  Copy of communication dated 16/3/17 from complainant to opposite party

Ext.A6 –  Original acknowledgment slip dated 23/12/2020.

Ext.A7 – Copy of communication dated 16/1/2021

Ext.A8 – Original of communication dated 18/1/21 from OP to complainant

Ext.A9 – Original of communication dated 18/2/21

Ext.A10 – Print out of communication dated 9/3/21

Ext.A11 – Original of proceedings bearing No.L12/RPLI/PLI Refund/dig  dated 28/7/21

Ext.A12 – Original of reply and attending documents availed under RTI Act

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –  Copy of  printout of policy summary    

Ext.B2 -  Copy of table 2 relating to endowment assurance.

Ext.B3  –  Copy of communication dated 18/2/2021

Ext.B4 –  Copy of Ext.A11

Ext.B5  - Copy of counter foil in SBIN221222497965

Ext.B6 – Copy of communication dated 17/8/21

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

 Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.