Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/1596

SMT.MEENA KHARE - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jul 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                            FIRST APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 12.09.2013 passed in C.C. No. 59/2012 by the District Forum, Panna)  

 

SMT. MEENA KHARE.                                                       …             APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

POST MASTER, POST OFFICE, HATHKURI, PANNA,

SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE, CHHATARPUR,

& POST MASTER GENERAL, MADHYA PRADESH.     …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN      :      MEMBER

               

 

Counsel for parties:

 

          Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

 

                                                O R D E R

                                    (Passed on 28.07.2016)

 

          The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

        

          Heard learned counsel for appellant on admission.

 

2.                     This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panna in CC No.59/2012.

3.                     In brief, the case of the appellant is that she got insured with the respondent no.1 on 30.04.2004 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- of which half yearly instalment in the sum of Rs.3186/- was to be paid. Maturity amount of the said policy Rs.1,30,000/- was to be paid in May-2012.  It is alleged that she deposited pass-book and Postal Insurance Amount Premium Receipt on 31.05.2012 but the respondents did not refund the deposited amount to her. Since the policy bonds were lost, she had also given affidavit. She therefore filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents before the District Forum.

4.                     The respondents resisted the complaint that yearly bonus has to be given on the policy.  On maturity, Rs.70750/- was due which was paid to her on 27.02.2013. 

-2-

Since the complainant lost the policy bond, after prolonged communication when they received the personal bond of indemnity, they paid the amount on 27.02.2013.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.                     The District Forum partly allowed the complaint holding that since the amount paid Rs. 70750/- was due on 30.04.2012 and was paid on 27.02.2013 thus there was delay of 10 months, directed the respondents to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost.

6.                     On going through the record I find that the amount due Rs.70,750/ was to be paid on 30.04.2012 which was paid on 27.02.2013, thus there is delay of 10 months in making payment.  This delay of 9 months was also procedural, the respondent no.1 Post Master wrote to his higher officials and obtained permission.  The appellant also lost the original policy bond for which she was informed to deposit personal bond of indemnity which she sent and was received by the respondents on 05.10.2012.  Thereafter the respondents again wrote to her on 12.10.2012 and 22.11.2012 to complete certain formalities i.e to send original premium receipt.  When she completed all the formalities and the respondents received all the documents, they immediately paid the amount of Rs.70,750/- to her.  There was no delay on their part.  However, for this delay the District Forum compensated her by awarding Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost.  On the said amount the appellant would have received less amount in savings bank then what the District Forum has awarded.  

 7.                    In view of the above discussion I find that the District Forum has adequately compensated the complainant/appellant and I do not find ground to enhance the same. The order of the District Forum is correct and up to the mark. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

8.                     In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed summarily at the admission stage having no merits at all.