Karnataka

Bijapur

CC/12/2015

Mallikarjun S/o Channappagouda patil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintedent of Post office Bijapur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S.B.Biradar

19 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VIJAYAPUR

DATE OF FILING 28^th   DAY OF JANUARY 2015

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 12/2015

 

 

DATED THIS THE  19^th  DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016

 

01) Sri S.H. Hosalli                            -          President.     

                  B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

02) Smt.G.S. Kalyani                         -        Lady Member.

                 B.Com.LLB. (Spl),

 

COMPLAINANT   -

1

Mallikarjun S/o Channappagouda Patil Age:60 Yrs, Occ:Pensioner, R/o H.No.76 Horakeri Building Shirur Park IInd Stage Vidhya Nagar,Hubli-29.         (By Sri. S.V.Hajeri, Adv)

 

- V/S -

 

OPPOSITE PARTY  -

1

The Superintendent of Post Office, Vijayapur Division, Vijayapur.          (By Sri. R.P.Bhide, Adv)

O R D E R

 

Speaking through Smt. G.S. Kalyani, Lady Member.

 

 

 

          This is a Complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (in short the “Op”) directing the Op to pay the total interest from 2008 to 2014 i.e. Rs.35,000/-, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

 

2)       The brief facts of the case are that:-

          That the complainant contended that he was serving in Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank head office P.B. Road, Dharwad, and he is served in different branches where ever he was transferred, now he is retired from the service.

 

 

 

 

3)       While the complainant was serving at Vijayapur branch he got insured his life with respondent under Life Insurance Policy Scheme bearing No.KT/BC-134/1 on 7/10/1988, the said policy was for twenty years to be matured in the month of September 2008.  The Monthly premium was Rs.95/-, the complainant used to pay the regular monthly premium through his employer, the employer remit the premium of Rs.95/- by deducting in the salary of complainant without any break.

 

          4)       Inspite of maturity of said policy the respondent’s officials did not intimated to the complainant, but continued with receiving the premium amount complainant up to the year 2014.  In the month of April 2014 the complainant had enquired with the office of respondent about maturity of policy, at that time the officials orally directed the complainant to right a letter to his employer to stop the monthly deduction.

 

          5)       On 12/05/2014 the complainant submitted the original policy and copy of corresponding letters with his employer to the office of respondent in turn the Dharwad officials of  respondent have sent a cheque of Rs.55,315/- bearing its number 552220 dated 28/05/2014 drawn State Bank of India Dharwad branch to the complainant towards the matured policy amount including the amount received from the complainant by way of excess premium from September 2008 to 2014, but the respondent has not paid the interest on the amount of complainant which was held unnecessarily and illegally by the  respondent as he received the premium from 2008 to 2014 though the policy was matured in the year of 2008, the interest thereon which approximately comes to Rs.35,000/-.

 

          6)       If the respondent fairly submitted to the employer of complainant to stop the salary deduction from September 2008, then that amount would have been useful to the family necessity of complainant, or if that amount was deposited under any other scheme then also the complainant would have entitle for the proper benefits, but the respondent had retained the said amount without any reasons from April 2008 to 2014.  The said act is because of deficiency of service of respondent towards his customer i.e. complainant.

 

          7)    After coming to know all these acts of respondent the complainant approached the respondent and his other responsible offices at several times to get his benefits but all went in vain.  At the last the complainant got issued legal notice on 3/6/2014 to the respondent and his associate office at Dharwad, inspite of service of legal notice the respondent has not responded to the grievances complainant.  However he replied with evasive answer so the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

 

8)       After receipt of said notice the Op appeared through their counsel and filed objections as under.

 

          The Op has contended that the contents of Para No.3 of the complaint are partly true and partly false. It is admitted that the policy No.KTBC00001342 was accepted on 7/10/1988 for Rs.20,000/- on monthly premium of Rs.95/-, the last premium of the said policy was due on 30/09/2008. The date of maturity of this policy was on 7/10/2008.  This insurance is called Postal Life Insurance.  The employer of the complainant i.e., Chief Manager Accounts Department Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad used to deduct the monthly premium from the monthly salary of the Complainant.  Further the Op denied the contents of Para 4 of complaint and its submitted by Op that the employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank the employer deduct the premium amount from the pension of complainant and deposit the same as premium of above said policy and retirement of the complainant is not within the knowledge of this Op.  The drawing Officer of the Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank Dharwad is responsible for deduction of the premium.

 

          9)       The Op submits that the policy holder should file an application claiming the maturity amount on its maturity and such application is submitted on 12/05/2014 immediately after receipt of application total maturity value of Rs.55,325/- has been released along with bonus accrued on  22/05/2014 and Op is not responsible for deduction of the premium from the salary.  Therefore, the Ops is not responsible for payment of interest etc.,

 

          10) Further, Op denied the contents of Para No.6 & 7 of the complaint they submit that this Op has not retained any amount and there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op. Further the Op contended that this compliant is time barred. The policy has matured in the year of 2008 and the complainant ought to have file the Complaint in the year of 2008 itself.  Hence they submit, the claim of the complainant is time bared and claim is exorbitant, and complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs.

 

 

          11) The complainant was employee of Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank at Vijayapur the policy was issued by the Op. The employer Bank deducted the Premium amount from the salary of employees same has been in the case of the complainant,  After the transferred from Vijayapur to Dharwad the employer continued to deduct the premium amount from the salary in routine manner complainant too did not object for deduction of the premium, from 2008 to till 2014.  Therefore, the Op is not responsible for alleged excess and interest as prayed by the complainant.  Hence, complaint is liable to be dismiss with exemplary costs.

           

12)     Both the parties filed their affidavits in support of their case, the documents produced on behalf of the complainant as marked as Ex.C-1 to 10. On behalf of Op produced two documents as marked as Ex. Op-1 & 2 respectively.   Both side advocates have filed their written arguments. Heard the arguments on both side.  Now, the points that arise for our consideration in deciding the case are:-

 

1. Whether the Op has rendered the deficiency in service to the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as is   

 sought for?

 3) What order?

 

 

 

    13)  Answer to the above points.

 

  1) In Affirmative.

  2) Partly Affirmative

  3) As per Final order.

 

REASONS.

 

14)    Pont No.1:-  There is no dispute on the point that the policy was issued by the Op. The said policy was matured on 07/10/2008 and there is no dispute in regard to deduction made by the drawing Officer of Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, from the salary as well as from the pension of complainant from the date of insurance to 2014 i.e. after maturity of the policy.

 

15)     Further there is no dispute in respect of release of said policy amount of Rs.55,325/-  with accrued bonus on 22/05/2014 as per document Ex. Op-1 and Ex.C-4 (both are same) only dispute in regard to excess premium Op also admit that complainant paid excess premium from the salary as well as from pension from the year 2008 to 2014.

 

16)     It is admitted fact that policy was issued by Op, Op’s bounden duty to inform the complainant (or insurer) about maturity date and also due installments.  Like other insurance companies, but this is not done in this case.  Even though the policy was matured the Op’s received the amount of complainant without any right not only received excess premium utilized the same for 6 years, this act of Op’s itself shows deficiency of service we also relied upon the ruling reported in 2016 (2) CPR 547 (NC) Union of India & Anr. V/S Rajinder Singh.

 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15,17,19 and 21 – Postal services – MIS Account s – Non – Payment of interest on excess deposits – District Forum directed petitioners to pay saving bank account interest on excess deposit – Petitioners were also directed to pay litigation expenses quantified at Rs.2,000/- - Addresses of depositors are available with post office – Nothing prevented petitioner from refunding any excess deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs by sending a cheque/demand draft to complainant on his address available with post office – That was not done – Had petitioners refunded excess deposits to complainant immediately he would have been in a position to deploy it in an appropriate instrument of saving – Had he put that money in a fixed deposit, he would have earned more than 8% per annum by way interest Direction for payment of 8% interest cannot be said to be unjustified”.

 

 17) In the above case also held that interest is payable on refund of excess amount by Post Office.  Hence, in this case also complainant though retired from service premium deducted from pension, if he put money in fixed deposit he would have earned more than  8% interest per annum.  Hence, we answer to the point No:1 In affirmative.

 

18)  Point No.2:- Once the deficiency is proved the next point is how much compensation complainant is entitled for?.  The complainant asked for Rs.35,000/- interest for withholding excess premium from 2008 to 2014.  Hence, complainant is entitled to get Rs.35,000/- towards interest on maturity amount and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

 

19) Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint of the complainant is fit to be allowed in part.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

O R D E R

 

1. The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

 

2. The Op is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-
   (Rs.Thirty Five Thousand Only)  with 9% interest from the date of maturity  i.e., from September 2008 to till realization.  

 

 

 

3. The Op is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-
   (Rs.Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) towards litigation cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The Op shall comply with this order within two months from the date of this order, failure of which the above said amount i.e., Rs.35,000/- shall carry an interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. September 2008 to till complete realization.

 

   (This order is dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited,

corrected and then pronounced in the open forum on this 19^th  day of November 2016).

 

 

 

 

 

Sri. S. H. Hosalli,  President.

Smt. G. S. Kalyani,     Lady Member.