STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 322 of 2025 Date of Institution : 28.11.2025 Date of Decision : 09.03.2026

1. Department of Posts, Office of Postmaster, Sonipat, Head Office, Sonipat, Haryana 131001 through its Post Master

2. Deputy Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Sonipat Division, Office of Superintendent of Post Office, Sonipat, District Sonipat, Haryana ……Appellants/Opposite Parties Versus Leelawati wife of Sh.Ranbir Singh, aged about 41 years, R/o House No.1179/A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh …..Respondent/Complainant BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER Argued by:

Sh. Narinder Kumar Vashist, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Leelawati, respondent in person PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the opposite parties –

Department of Posts and Deputy Divisional Manager, Postal Life Insurance (appellants herein) seeking setting aside of order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the complainant (respondent herein) bearing No.793 of 2022 has been partly allowed by granting following relief:-

“9. In view of the above discussion, the said act of the OPs in rejecting the entire claim and forfeiting the amount certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed, the same is accordingly partly allowed and the OPs are directed as under :-

(i) to release the sum assured due (after deducting the remaining one installment of Rs.1435/- alongwith interest, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present consumer complaint i.e. 24.11.2022 till the date of its actual realization.

(ii) to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.

The above said order shall be complied with by the OPs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”

2. It was the case of the complainant before the District Commission that the opposite parties floated various schemes and invited public at large to invest the amount in the schemes floated and on the assurance given by the agent of opposite parties, the complainant obtained Postal Life Insurance Policy (Annexure C-2) alongwith letter dated 10.06.2010 from the opposite parties by paying a sum of ₹1,435/-. The mode of payment was ₹1,435/- per month and sum assured was ₹1,00,000/-. The complainant was paying the monthly premium up-to August 2011 but due to some family problem could not deposit the premium thereafter. She received letter dated 09.04.2013 from the office of opposite parties intimating that the policy stood lapsed, however, on consideration of her request, the opposite parties allowed revival subject to deposit of arrears of premium of ₹28,700/- along with interest of ₹3,213/- from 01.09.2011 to 30.04.2013 totaling ₹31,913/- on or before 30.04.2013 vide letter dated 09.04.2013 (Annexure C-3). The said amount was deposited by the complainant and the policy was revived. However, after maturity, when the complainant requested release of sum assured, the opposite parties failed to release the same despite letters dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure C-4), 22.06.2022 (Annexure C-5) and 25.07.2022 (Annexure C-6) and instead vide letter dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure C- 7) intimated that only thirty five months premium had been deposited and as per department rules, there is no provision to give maturity claim if premium is not deposited continuously for three years (36 months). Thereafter vide letter dated 22.09.2022 (in fact 26.09.2022 (Annexure C-9), the opposite parties rejected the claim and forfeited the amount deposited leading to filing of a consumer complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking