Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 274
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, PRESIDENT, SRI. AJITH KUMAR D., JUDICIAL MEMBER, SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN, MEMBER
THE SUPDT OF POST OFFICES, TIRUR DIVISION – Appellant
Versus
SUDHARMAN PAROL – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/578/2017 | C.C. No.330/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep R.P.
For the Respondents: R. Suja Madhav
A policyholder's right to surrender value must be honored within a reasonable timeframe to avoid deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 12, 13 & 19 - Deficiency in service - Complainant subscribed to a Postal Life Insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- and requested surrender - Payment was delayed until 01.09.2016, following the application made on 04.01.2016 - The opposite party failed to provide timely responses despite repeated requests - The Commission found this significant delay constituted deficiency in service, affirming the lower court's decision to award Rs.10,000/- compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs, while modifying the interest rate on compensation from 12% to 9% per annum. (Paras 5, 8, 9)
(B) Consumer Rights - The right of a policyholder to obtain surrender value in a reasonable time is fundamentally protected under consumer law. (Paras 6, 7)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. payment delays constitute service deficiencies, modifying compensation awarded. (Para 8) |
8. No convincing reason was stated by the opposite party for the delayed payment, apart from stating that there was no time limit for disbursing the surrender value of the policy. In the said circumstances, the considerable delay in making payment of the surrender value of the policy would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the finding by the District Commission, that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, does not warrant any interference by this Commission. The District Commission ordered to pay only Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or disproportionate, warranting interference by this Commission. However, the District Commission ordered interest at 12% per annum for the compensation and costs. The interest ordered on costs cannot be justified and hence the order pertaining to interest on costs stands set aside.
9. The complainant is definitely entitled to get interest on compensation.
However, the interest ordered by the District Commission appears to be on a higher side. Consequently, the interest on compensation ordered by the District Commission stands modified and reduced from 12% to 9% per annum, to secure the ends of justice.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed with the above modification in interest. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.
