Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/15/1201

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAKHANLAL SHRIVASTAVA - Opp.Party(s)

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2015

(Arising out of order dated 11.09.2015 passed in C.C.No.45/2013 by District Commission, Narsinghpur)

 

1. INDIAN POSTAL DEPARTMENT, BAGASPUR,

    VILLAGE-BAGASPUR, TEHSIL-GOTEGAON,

    DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)

 

2. HEAD POST OFFICE, NARSINGHPUR,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR.

 

3. PRAVAR ADHISHAK, POST OFFICE,

    HOSHANGABAD.                                                                                                       … APPELLANTS.

 

                       Versus

 

LAKHANLAL SHRIVASTAVA,

S/O SHRI SHIVPRASAD SHRIVASTAVA,

R/O VILLAGE-BAGASPUR,

TEHSIL-GOTEGAON, DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR                                                       … RESPONDENT.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.

           Shri Manish Nema, learned counsel for the respondent.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 02.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal arises out of the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.45/2013, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent is partly allowed.

 

-2-

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission stating that on 25.07.2010 he had obtained a ‘Rural Postal Life Insurance Policy’ no. RMP-BH-GY 22950 for a period of ten years from the opposite parties/appellants post office and had paid yearly premium Rs.5,887/- for the aforesaid period.  The complainant was entitled for maturity amount of Rs.70,000/-, but the opposite parties paid only Rs.50,000/-.  Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and seeking the balance amount from the opposite parties, he filed a complaint with the District Commission.

3.                The opposite parties made a submission that the complainant has already been given maturity amount which was due under the said policy.  It is further submitted that payment of balance amount is also under process. The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation and deserves to be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay interest @ 8% p.a. on a sum of Rs.20,000/- from 25.08.2010 till the date of payment. In addition Rs.5,000/- towards compensation with another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs has also been awarded.

5.                Heard. 

 

-3-

6.                Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued that the complainant himself was negligent and failed to fulfill the requisite formalities and therefore, Rs.20,000/- could not be paid to him but however,

the appellants later paid the said amount to the complainant/respondent. The District Commission failed to appreciate evidence available in record appropriately and has further erred in granting interest and compensation both together at the same time, which is unjustified. He argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. While making this submission he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd & Anr Vs P. R. Krishnan & Anr I (1995) CPJ 43 (NC).

7.                Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order and allowed the complaint since there was inordinate delay in payment of the amount by which was due to be paid by the appellants.  He therefore, argued that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.                On due consideration of the evidence available in the record of the District Commission and the impugned order, we find that it has rightly been held by the District Commission that the appellant paid Rs.20,000/- which was due to be paid much later i.e. on 05.11.2013, whereas the maturity date was 25.08.2010. In this view of the matter, we do not find that

-4-

the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity in allowing the complaint.

9.                The District Commission has however, awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on due amount, along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation, which considering the facts and circumstances of the matter appear to be amplified. In the circumstances, we set-aside the compensation awarded by the District Commission. Rest of the directions contained in the impugned order shall remain unaltered.  

10.              With the modification as aforesaid, this appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.  

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER