SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER vs SURENDRA PANDEY

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 296/2011, " Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Surendra Pandey ", vide which the State Commission dismissed the appeal, against the order dated 10.05.2011, passed by the District Forum Samastipur, allowing the consumer complaint in question, but reduced the interest awarded by the District Forum from 12% p.a. to 8% p.a.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Smt. Nutan Devi w/o complainant Surendra Pandey had taken a postal insurance policy for 50,000/- and deposited 1,128/- as premium with the petitioner/OP on 05.03.2008 for the policy No. A 357579. It has been stated that the petitioner issued pass book and policy bond on 23.12.2008, whereas the life assured had already died on 05.10.2008. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that the OP had refused to entertain his claim, despite issuing of a legal notice. The complainant sought directions to the OP to pay the sum insured of 50,000/- and a sum of 20,000/- for compensation for mental harassment.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation u/s 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OP admitted that a sum of 1,128/- had been received by them as premium, vide receipt No. 15 dated 05.03.2008 for the said policy, but the premium had been accepted by them provisionally, subject to the approval of the proposal by the Chief Post Master General. Since the policy holder Nutan Devi died on 05.10.2008 before the acceptance of the Policy, the complainant was not entitled to get the death claim; hence the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

The District Forum, after taking into account the contentions of the rival parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of 50,000/- towards postal insurance policy with interest @12% p.a. with effect from the date of legal notice dated 23.12.2008, as well as compensation of 5,000/- against mental harassment and 4,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner/OP challenged the same before the State Commission by way of appeal. The said appeal, having been dismissed vide impugned order, although the rate of interest was reduced from 12% to 8%, the petitioner/OP is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During the course of admission hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner explained that since the wife of the complainant died before the acceptance of the Policy by the concerned authority of the Postal Department, the complainant was not liable to be given any claim. When questioned about the time frame laid-down for giving such acceptance etc. by the competent authority, no satisfactory explanation could be given on behalf of the petitioner. It was, therefore, directed that a Senior Officer of the Department of Posts, Government of India, should attend the hearing of the Commission and explain relevant rules/regulations etc. in this regard. The Superintendent Post Master Samastipur, who is the petitioner, appeared in person and stated that there was heavy rush of applications before them for issuance of such policies. They could, therefore, issue the said policy in the month of December 2008 only.

I have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

Admittedly, the proposal form for Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) alongwith premium of 1,128/- was received by the petitioner/OP on 05.03.2008, and a copy of the receipt to that effect, is also on record. However, the contention of the petitioner/OP that they could not issue the policy for period as long as 9 months, is totally unjustified, and it amounts to huge deficiency in service on their part, towards the applicants, desirous of obtaining such policies. The second instalment of the said premium, which was due after 6 months from 05.03.2008, could not be deposited, because the pass-book etc. had not been issued by the Postal Department by that time.

The consumer fora below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service writ large on the part of the Postal Authorities by not issuing the policy for such a long time. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below in coming to the conclusion about the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/OP. The said orders are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.