Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Member & Mrs. Rachna, Member
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.—Appellants
versus
MAHENDRA PAL SINGH—Opposite Party
Appeal No. 806/SC of 2001—Decided on 10.6.2002
In regard to the merit of the case, the opposite parties have not fully rebutted the claim of the complainant. On 3-5-1995 he had sent a letter to the opposite party No. 2 for onwards transmission to the Opposite Party No. 1 in which the maturity claim of the insurance policy was made and PLI pass book No. 24152 in original had also been sent along with other documents. In the written statement filed before the Forum, this has not been specifically rebutted. In case the policy was going to be lapsed, it was the duty of the postal Life Insurance authorities to have informed the complainant to deposit the outstanding premiums. No record to that effect has been made available by the opposite parties. In para 5 of the written statement, the opposite parties have stated that the papers sent by the complainant were received on 15-5-1995 but the pass book was not received but in the same breath the opposite party has revealed that vigorous attempts were made to trace out the pass book and inspite of that the pass book was not made available. This clearly goes to show that the pass book had also been sent in the registered cover to the opposite party and the same was lost either in the offices at Kanpur or at Lucknow for which the complainant cannot be held responsible. In the same paragraph of the written statement, the opposite party has come out with the plea that the Sub-Post Master at Hasayan was asked to furnish the particulars of deposits by the complainant but the same was not submitted by the Post Office. There was no occasion to ask for a pass book from the complainant when the complainant had already sent the original pass book to the opposite party. We, therefore, agree with the finding of the Forum that an Ex-serviceman in all good faith sent the original papers to secure his payment and was not necessarily required to keep with himself the photocopies of the papers specially of the pass book. It is a matter of common knowledge that very few people keep the duplicate copy or the xerox copy of the pass book normally. It also appears necessary to go through the Annexure-4 along with the memo of appeal which is the report of the Sub-Post Master, Hasayan. This report states that as per records available the complainant had not deposited any amount in the Post Office but at the same time the Sub Post Master has also said in the report that the Post Office has the record available with it from January 1996 onwards and the record prior to that period has not been made available to him inspite of search having been made. The point on which the complainant has relied is that he had deposited the entire outstanding amount of premium in year 1992 even if the policy was to mature in the year 1996 and the Sub-Post Office has come forward openly that the record prior to 1996 has not been made available. Nowhere it has been shown as to what was the circumstances under which the records prior to 1996 were not made available. Even if the records had been sent to the Head Office the same could have been traced out. This clearly goes to show that the pass book in question was misplaced or lost in the offices of the opposite parties. Before the learned District Forum, the complainant had given the entire details of the pass book and the other policy details which he had sent to the opposite parties and this was supported by affidavit he had filed whereas the opposite parties did not file any affidavit, therefore, the finding of the District Forum should not be interfered with the judgment and order are perfectly right. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Member—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.2.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 786/1997.
2. The brief facts of the case as stated before the Forum are as follows :
3. The complainant, Sri Mahendra Pal Singh is an Ex-Serviceman who is now re-employed with the Central Roadways Work shop, Rawatpur, Kanpur. During the period he was in the services of the Defence Department, he had taken a Postal Life Insurance Policy for Rs. 10,000/-. The monthly instalment was Rs. 40/- per month which was to be payable in 20 years time. As per provisions of the scheme, the maturity amount which was to be paid to the complainant was Rs. 20,000/-. The insurance cover was taken in the year 1975 and made effective from 6.1.1976 and was to mature on 6.1.1996. Thus, the payment of monthly premium was paid from 6.1.1976 continuously. Till March, 1982 the premium was being paid by the complainant while he was in the service of the Defence Department. After March, 1982 the monthly premium was deposited with the Post Office at Hasayan in District Aligarh against which the entries were being made in the pass book. The amount outstanding from the year 1992 to 1996 was deposited in one lot and the entry to the effect was also made in the Post Office. As soon as the maturity was due on 6.1.1996 the complainant had become entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, in order to secure this amount, he sent to opposite party No. 1, Assistant Post Master General, Postal Life Insurance, Lucknow through the Post Office, Postal Life Insurance Office, General Post Office, Kanpur Cantt. opposite party No. 2 by a registered letter alongwith the documents like Postal Life Insurance Pass Book in original, Policy Certificate number, receipt issued against the deposit of first premium on 6.1.1976 and other papers. Inspite of this, the payment was not made on the date of maturity. A complaint was made to the General Post Office at Kanpur. The matter was referred by opposite party No. 2 to opposite party No. 1 but no help was rendered. The complainant, therefore, had to visit Lucknow on a number of occasions and at one such occasion, he found that the original pass book sent by him to the opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 had been lost some where and was not available with the records of the policy. Again he wrote letters to the opposite parties on 1.10.1997 and 15.10.1997 for payment of the amount due to him but because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the payment was not made. The complainant had to take loan of Rs. 25,000/- to get his daughter married and he had to pay interest @ 12% per annum on this loan. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- as the amount due under the policy alongwith the interest @ 18% per annum from 6.2.1996 till the date of payment. A compensation of Rs. 11,000/- was also claimed.
4. In the written statement before the District Consumer Forum, the Postal Life Insurance of the complainant was admitted by the opposite party but it was denied that the lump-sum payment was made in the month of December, 92 in respect of the premium due upto 1996. As per records of the Postal Department, the particulars of the deposits were available with the Postal Department only upto October, 1984, and therefore, as per Rule 40 of the policy, the policy had lapsed. The total monthly premiums to be paid were to be Rs. 240/- and as against this the complainant had only deposited Rs. 118/- monthly premium at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The Department had duly investigated the matter of the complainant. The insured, complainant had sent his application for payment of the surrender value of the policy through the opposite party No. 2 and the pass book was not received alongwith these documents. The Department also made efforts to trace out the pass book. Upon t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
