Post Master Office , Head Post Master vs Samadhan Subash Patil

REVISION Petition No.1680 of 2012 has been filed with delay of 69 days. We have perused the application for condonation of this delay. It does not even reveal the date on which the copy of the impugned order was received by the petitioner. The relevant para reads:- "That after receipt of the copy of the Order dated 13.09.11 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the petitioners/postal department forwarded the same to their higher officers for taking the decision to file the present revision petition or not. The competent authority of the petitioners sought the permission of Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India and on 06.01.12, the said Ministry advised the petitioners to file the present revision petition and thereafter, the said Law Ministry further appointed Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate on 20.04.2012 who prepared the entire paper book, as such, although there is no delay in filing the present REVISION Petition, but at the most, it can be said that in filing the present revision petition only 65 days delay is there which is beyond the control of the of the petitioners. "

THIS explanation betrays an assumption that because of the movement of relevant papers, delay is inevitable and must therefore be condoned. In our view, the explanation is not satisfactory and needs to be rejected. The question of delay in Government Departments once again came before the Apex Court for consideration in Postmaster General and ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563. It was observed that:- "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. "

Coming to the merits of the matter, the revision petition shows that the decision of the State Commission has been questioned on the ground that it is not based on evidence.

The consumer complaint arises from the claim under a Postal Life Insurance Policy, consequent upon death of the insured. The claim was not paid allegedly on the ground that the policy was in lapsed condition as premia were not paid regularly. The District Forum has noted that the insured had credited Rs.2880/- as premium for previous nine months, including interest and default fee, on 29.11.2005. It also noted that premium for the months of December, 2005 and January, 2006 were also paid on 10.1.2006. However, the District Forum held that although the premia had been paid, there was no proof submitted regarding revival of the insurance policy.

The impugned order of the State Commission has referred to the above two payments of November, 2005 and January, 2006 and observed:- "It has come on record that policy holder deposited nine installments with interest and penalty at one time. Said premiums were accepted by charging interest and penalty, therefore, it can not be said that policy holder was in default. Even premiums of Dec. 2005 and Jan. 2006 were deposited by policy holder on 10.01.2006 with penalty and interest. As premiums were accepted by Post Office they are estopped from raising any objection regarding policy. There is deficiency in service on the part of the post office in repudiating the claim, though all the premiums were deposited by policy holder as per terms and conditions of the p0licy. Premiums accepted with penalty and interest, therefore in our view, complainant is entitled to policy amount with all its benefits. District Forum committed error in dismissing the complaint. "

We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner. The revision petition questions the view taken by the State Commission on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence on record. However, no attempt is made on behalf of the revision petitioner to bring out the specific piece of evidence on the record of the fora below, which could be considered in conflict with the view taken in the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the written response of the OP before the District Forum itself categorically accepts the payments of outstanding premia in November, 2005 and January, 2006. The written response states in para 17 that under Rule 39 (1) of the Post Office Insurance Fund Rules, the policy was treated as lapsed and there was no application for its revival. However, there is nothing to show whether the lapse of policy was communicated in any manner to the deceased or the Complainant and if it was, why were payment of outstanding premia together with interest amount were accepted, if it was not for revival of the policy. We therefore find no merit in the contention of the revision petitioner.

IN view of the above, revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. No orders as to costs.