DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR
Present:-
1. Sri. D.K.Tripathy, President.
2. Smt. K.Rath, Member.
3. Sri. N.P.Joshi, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 30th day of November 2009.
C.D.C.No.6 of 2009
Bati Singh, Age-54 years w/o: Late Haldhar @ Howda
Singh, resident of Khaliapali, P.O: Salebhata,
P.S: Loisingha, Dist- Bolangir.
Complainant
-Versus-
1. Dy. Divisional Manager (Postal Life Insurance)
At-Office of Chief Post Master General, Orissa
Circle, Bhubaneswar.
2. Post Master General (Postal Life Insurance)
Sambalpur Region, Sambalpur.
3. Superintendent of Posts and Telegraph, Bolangir,
At- Head Post Office, Bolangir
Opp. Parties
30.11.2009 ORDER:
Sri. D.K.Tripathy, President
1. One Bati Singh has filed this complaint against the O.P.1 Dy. Divisional Manager (Postal Life Insurance), and two others, of the same department seeking for a direction to them, to pay the maturity amount of the Life Insurance Policy, of her deceased husband and other relief’s.
2. The complainant’s case in short is that her husband Late Howda @ Haldhar Singh was an employee in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and at the time of his death on dt 7.3.2002 he was posted at Salebhata Telephone Exchange under S.D.O (T), Bolangir. He had Postal Life Insurance Policy vide No. OR-248T-17 Class EA/58 dt 11.7.1986 having premium of Rs 17/- per month and the same was remitted from the salary of her husband to O.P.No.3. The complainant was the nominee of the said policy, declared by her husband. The complainant’s husband died in his village at Khaliapali. After the death of her husband, his wife the nominee claimed the assured amount and sent the claim from with other documents on dt 28.2.2003 to O.P.No.1. The office of the O.P.1 asked the complainant to produce the original policy bond of her husband. As the same was not traceable, with the advice of the O.P’s office, she executed an indemnity bond before the O.Ps office and submitted the same. As the O.Ps did not take any step, thereafter, she sent reminder with copy to the other O.Ps but in vain, so the complainant served legal notice on dt 31.5.2009, with copies to other O.Ps but still the O.Ps did not take any action, hence this complaint.
3. The O.Ps 1 and 3 filed their versions both are similar. They have totally denied the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the complainant Bati Singh is not the legally wife of Late Haladhar Singh of the policy No.OR-248T dated 11.7.1986. There is also no record nor the complainant filed any document that her husband Howda Singh and Policy holder Haladhar Singh are one and same person. They rely Annesure-2 (not filed) that, the premium was deduced from the pay slip of Howda and not from Haladhar Singh, that too Bati Singh wife of Late Howda Singh was neither the wife of Haladhar Singh, policy holder of the aforesaid policy number nor he was the nominee of the policy holder in Policy No.OR-248T dt 11.7.1986, rather the xerox copy of the said policy filed by the O.Ps shows that Premalata Singh, aged about 24 years wife of Haladhar Singh was the nominee of the policy holder in the said policy and the premium amount was Rs 16.75 and not Rs 17/- as averred in the complaint petition. So the claimant Bati Singh is not the actual nominee and Howda Singh was not the insurant in the said policy. However, in view of the claim of the complainant, she was asked to submit original policy bond bearing No.OR-248T but instead of submitting the original policy bond, she submitted indemnity bond which was not accepted by the O.Ps. Besides that it is alleged that the claim of the complainant is time barred as it is filed beyond two years of the death of the supposed insurant. In sum, it is alleged that the claimant is other than the actual nominee of the aforesaid policy nor the death certificate was that of the insurant. The original policy bond was also not produced and as the claim is time barred, the O.Ps submitted for dismissal of the claim.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant Bati Singh wife of Howada @ Haladhar Singh, is one and same person. She had also filed the copy of Succession certificate of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bolangir and also Xerox copy of the Pension payment order, wherein Bati Singh has been shown as Howada Singh only. If at all she was not the wife of the policy holder, there is no reason by the O.Ps asking her to produce the original bond, on the basis of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the complainant submitted to allow the claim. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the O.Ps that the claim of the complainant is a false one. The complainant has not filed any document showing that Haladhar and Hawda are one and same person. The xerox copies of the Succession Certificate and pension payment order, shows that she was the wife of Late Howda Singh, no where in those documents Howada Singh is also known as Haladhar Singh. There is also no mention of the name of Howda Singh in the xerox copy of the policy No.OR-248T filed by the O.Ps, that Haladhar and Howda, are one and same person. One Premalata Singh was the wife and nominee of Late Haladhar Singh and not Bati Singh. More so, the premium amount was also Rs 16.75 paisa as against the claim of the complainant, that the premium was Rs 17/-. As the claimant is neither the nominee nor the wife of the insurant, she could not produce the original policy bond nor she could show also how it was lost or missed. Least but not least, the suppose husband of the complainant died on dt 7.3.2003, but she filed the claim position on dt 22.1.2009, more or less about 6 years. She has submitted the claim petition on 28.2.2003. He was asked for the original policy bond on 17.6.2003 and executed indemnity bond on 3.7.2004 before the Sub Post Master Salebhata and thereafter she remained silent and issued reminder on 1.9.2005 and remained silent for some years and again tried to revive the claim by issuing Pleaders notice on 21.5.2008, by that time the claim was already time barred under the Consumer Protection Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, there is neither any merit in the claim petition nor the claim is within time. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Hence the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.
I Agree I Agree
Sd/-K. Rath Sd/- N.P. Joshi Sd/-D. K Tripathy
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT