West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/64/2015

Nimai Mahapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent, Post office of India - Opp.Party(s)

05 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

And

 Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.64/2015

                                                       

                                           Nimai Mahapatra………………..….……Complainant.

Versus

1)Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,

2)Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Somasis Ponda, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Postal Department.

 

Decided on: - 05/10/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - This is a case under Sections 12, 13 & 14 of C.P. Act.  Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant with a view to obtain a Postal Life Insurance Policy submitted proposal form and deposited the assessed first premium of Rs.1,484/- to the Sub-Postmaster, Madpur Post Office and the aforesaid Post Office acknowledged the receipt of the first premium by issuing money receipt on 18/04/2013. But unfortunately the opposite parties namely Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Medinipur Division and Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kharagpur Divn.  cancelled the said proposal and they did not issue any policy certificate and returned the original policy form to the complainant by registered post.  But they did not return the premium money to the complainant for which the complainant went to the post office at Madpur for return of his premium money but the concerned Post Office did not take care of it and avoided to return the premium money. The complainant therefore sent a registered letter dated 03/01/2015 to the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle but of no good.  Hence, the complaint, praying for an order directing the opposite party to

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd…………..P/2

 

 

 

                                                                                 

                                                                                                                     ( 2 )

refund the premium money to the complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a written objection contending inter alia that the complainant submitted one rural  Postal Life Insurance proposal form to the Branch Post Master, Sainthal B.O. for a new policy of Rs.60,000/- and he deposited Rs.1,484/- on 18/04/2013 as first premium.  Since the complainant did not submit standard age proof certificate, so the proposal form was returned to the complainant.  The complainant was also requested through Branch Post Master to resubmit the proposal form along with standard age proof certificate so that policy could be accepted.  As per departmental rule, neither the Branch Post Master, Sainthal B.O. nor Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Kharagpur Sub-Division is competent to refund the credited amount.  Only the senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapore Division is authorized to issue refund order.  The complainant did not inform anything about his    in-ability to submit his standard age proof certificate and since no application for refund along with original money receipt and original proposal form was available at the disposal of the opposite party no.1, the refund could not be sanctioned.  After knowing about the grievance of the complainant only on receipt of the petition of complaint case, necessary refund order has been sanctioned vide memo no.B-96/RPLI/refund 2015 dated 05/08/2015 and the same was communicated to the complainant on 06/08/2015 through registered post.  In the above circumstances, it is prayed by the opposite parties that the complaint case may be dismissed without any cost.

                                                                                                         Point for decision

                                                                 Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                     

                                                                                                      Decision with reasons

                             At the very outset, it is to be stated here that neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any evidence, either the oral or documentary in this case but they have relied upon some copies of document.  However, it appears that the complainant admittedly deposited first premium of Rs.1,484/- along with proposal form for PLI on 18/04/2013 and said proposal was cancelled as he did not submit age proof certificate.  So, the cause of action arose on or about 18/04/2013, when the complainant deposited the proposal form and first premium of Rs.1,484/- and the same was not accepted for his failure to submit age proof certificate. But the present petition of complaint has been filed on 18/06/2015 i.e. long after the period of limitation of two years.   It is, therefore, held that the present case is barred by limitation.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                                                  

 

                                                                                                                   ( 3 )

                   It is also to be mentioned here that the complainant has failed to produce any document to show that he submitted any application before the opposite parties for return of his premium money.  In their written objection, the opposite party have stated that after perusing the petition of complaint, they came to know about the grievance of the complainant and immediately thereafter, they passed necessary refund order of the premium amount of Rs.1,484/- vide memo no.B-96/RPLI/refund 2015 dated 05/08/2015.  We, therefore, find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

                    In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of our above discussions, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and moreover the present complaint is barred by limitation.  The complaint case is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                                                                     Hence, it is,

                                                                                                 Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.64/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost. 

             Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                           President                                    Member                                  President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                      Paschim Medinipur