FA No.198 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.No.45 OF 2002 DISTRICT FORUM SRIKAKULAM

Between:

1.     The Chief Post Master General, Delhi

2.     The Post Master General, Abids, Hyderabad

3.     The Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam

4.     Head Post Master, Srikakulam Head Post Office

                                                                Appellants/opposite parties

        A N D

1.     Kunchala Venkata Krishna Rao S/o late Suryanarayana

        Aged 38 yrs,

2.     Kunchala Thavitamma W/o late Suryanarayana, aged 67 yrs

3.     Chitti Rajeswaramma W/o Mukalingeswara Rao, aged 45 yrs

        All are R/o Silagam Singivalasa Village, Srikakulam

        Rural Mandal, Srikakulam District

4.     Bora Seetharatnam W/o Seiraju, aged 35 yrs

        Chintada Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam Dist.

Respondents/complainants

Counsel for the Appellants            Sri V.Vinod Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents        Sri A.Rama Rao

QUORUM:    SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                               AND

      SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

        MONDAY THE FIFTH  DAY OF DECEMBER

                     TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN

    Oral Order:(Per Sri R.Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member.)

***

1.     The opposite parties are the appellants.

2.     The factual matrix of the case is that the father of the respondent no.1 purchased five National Savings Certificates (NSCs) for `1000/- each in January 1994.  Subsequently on 30.11.1996 his father died leaving behind his legal representatives.  The NSCs were matured for payment of `10,000/- in January 2000. The respondents submitted the claim papers on 11.2.2000.  The appellants did not settle the claim in spite of letter dated 2.8.2000.  Thereafter the respondents addressed letter dated 26.6.2001 to DAK Adalat for settlement of the claim, the DAK Adalat in turn vide its letter dated 27..6.2001 informed the respondents that the NCS bonds were pledged with DCTO.  The respondents after two years from the date of maturity issued notice to the appellants for settlement of claim.  On 24.1.2002 the fourth respondent return all the claim papers to the respondents. 

3.     The appellants resisted the case contending that since the person who purchased National Savings Certificates died, the claim has to be settled after verification.  The respondent no.1 submitted claim for the maturity amount of NSCs with omissions and without producing documents.  Hence, the claim papers were returned on 24.1.2002.  The respodnentno1 issued notice notices and to that effect replies were issued.  According to the appellants the details of near relatives furnished at page no.2 of the claim application have not tallied with the details notice on the Mahazar and the age of the second respondent is not tallied in the claim application as also in the Mahazar.  The relationship of the second respondent with the deceased is not noted in the Mahazar and the particulars of K.Saroja who is the daughter of the deceased has to be noted and her statement has to be submitted.   

4.     The respondent no.1filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A23.  On behalf of the appellants Syed Khaleel Saheb, Superintendent of Post Offices, Srikakulam i.e., appellant no.4 filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.B1 to B6.

5.     The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellants to pay the maturity value of `10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.2.2000 till payment along with costs of `2,500/-

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties filed the appeal contending that the claim application was submitted without furnishing the particulars of K.Saroja who is also a legal heir of the deceased depositor and she has not given no objection certificate.  The respondents failed to resubmit the claim papers.  The State Commission remanded C.D.No.45 of 2002  on the assurance and undertaking given by the counsel for the respondents that they will submit the relevant documents necessary for settlement of the claim.  The interest @ 12% per annum awarded by the District forum is excessive since the State Commission has remanded the matter to the District Forum.

7.     The points for consideration are:

        1.     Whether the appellants committed deficiency in service in not
                making payment of the amount due under NSCs to the
                respondents?

        2.     To what relief?

8.     POINT NO.1        The second respondent’s husband K.Suryanarayana during his life time purchased 6-year National Savings Certificates from the appellant no.3 for a total value of `5,000/-.  The maturity period of the certificates is six years from the date of their issue i.e., 25.1.2000 for the certificate Nos.16CC 166256 and 16CC 166257 dated 25.1.1994 and the maturity date of the other three certificates bearing Nos.16CC 166289, 16CC 166290 and 16CC 166291 dated 31.1.1994 is 31.1.2000.  The certificates holder died on 30.11.1996.  The claim lodged by the respondents was not settled by the appellants on the premise that some relevant documents had not been filed.  The respondents had made representation and also got issued notice dated 21.11.2001 and 18.1.2002 for which the appellants had given reply. 

9.     According to the appellants, the details of near relatives furnished at page no.2 of the claim application have not tallied with the details notice on the Mahazar and the age of the second respondent is not tallied in the claim application as also in the Mahazar.  The relationship of the second respondent with the deceased is not noted in the Mahazar and the particulars of K.Saroja who is the daughter of the deceased has to be noted and her statement has to be submitted.  Basing on these objections the appellants attempted to support their inaction in keeping the claim pending. 

10.    The respondents had submitted legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikakulam which does not reveal the name of Sarojini as the legal heir of the deceased Suryanaryana.  The legal heir certificate issued by the Tahisildar Srikakulam on 27.10.2000 also does not contain the name of Sarojini as the legal heir of the deceased.  Relying upon the certificates issued by the MRO and the Tahsildar,  the District Forum has opined that the appellants had raised mischievous objection to refuse payment of the amount covered under the National Savings Certificates. 

11.    Insofar as the objection in regard to the age of one of the respondent in the claim application compared to the contents of Mahazar it cannot be held a tenable objection.  It is not the case of the appellants that the second respondent is not the legal heir of the deceased.  Discrepancy in the age of the second respondent is not by itself can be a ground for non-settlement of the claim.  Insofar as the objection that K.Saroja is not made a party to the claim nor no objection certificate was obtained from her is concerned, the appellants if entertained any doubt, they could have withheld proportionate amount to the share of K.Saroja and ought to have settled the claim of the respondents.  The non-settlement of the claim on such petty issue as the discrepancy in the age of the respondent no.2 constitute deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. 

12.    The appellants cannot take shelter under the plea that one of the legal heirs of the deceased i.e., K.Saroja was not made a party to the claim application particularly in the light of contents of legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and Tahsildar, Srikakulam showing the respondents no.1 to 4 as the legal heirs of the deceased Suryanarayana.  The appellants had committed deficiency in service by retaining the amount and refraining themselves from settling the claim on arbitrary and untenable grounds.   We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum in allowing the complaint for proceeds of the National Savings Certificates issued in favour of the husband of the respondent no.2. 

13.    Insofar as the objection as to the entitlement of K.Saroja, is concerned the appellants have not produced any certificate from the competent authority that Saroja is the legal heir of the deceased Suryanarayana and she is entitled to any share in the proceeds of the NSCs.  It is pertinent to note that the appellants have not addressed letter to the said Saroja informing her that a claim in respect of the NSCs obtained by Suryanarayana has been pending with them and they had not sought for any clarification from her in this regard.  The deceased has not appointed any person by name Saroja as his nominee nor any person by name Saroja has raised objection as to the entitlement of the respondents to the proceeds of NSCs.  Viewed from any angle the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants is manifest in non-settlement of the claim on arbitrary and frivolous grounds which do not stand to the scrutiny of facts or law by this Commission.  Accordingly, this Commission accepts the findings returned by the District Forum in regard to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in keeping the claim not settled over a long period of time. 

        In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. The costs of the proceedings quantified at `2,000/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                              Dt.05.12.2011

KMK*