BRANCH POSTMASTER, VANNARAM Vs. DIDDIGAM ANJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum assailing the order that went against them.

(2.) The facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings and the other material on record are briefly as follows:

(3.) Originally the complaint was filed by the husband of the insured, who died before her proposal for insurance was accepted by the postal authorities. During the pendency of the complaint, unfortunately the said husband nominee also died, so the second wife of the deceased complainant and his minor daughter through his deceased wife came to be added as complainant Nos.2 and 3. The first wife of the deceased first complainant by name D.Satyavathi applied for postal life insurance by submitting her proposal form the original of which came to be filed by the appellants as Ex.B14. As could be seen from Ex.B14, the proposal sought a policy of Rs.50,000/- but the said figure was found scored out and in its place the figure Rs.25,000/- came to be substituted both in numerals as also letters. The said proposal form is dated 13-3-1997. It was counter signed by way of attestation by a Civil Surgeon. The form was filled in by the Branch Post Master of Vannaram BO. Along with the proposal form, admittedly she paid an amount of Rs.128/- towards premium as per Ex.A3 issued by no other than the very branch Post Master, Vannaram. It is also dated 13-3-1997. Subsequently on 14-4-1997 the said insurance applicant D.Satyavathi died as per the death certificate, Ex.A4. Thereafter the deceased first complainant being her husband submitted a claim for the insurance amount quantified at Rs.50,000/-, on the strength of the copies of the premium receipt as also the death certificate. He claimed to have addressed several letters to the respondents to get the matter settled but in vain. Subsequently on 6-3-1998 he received a letter from the respondent at Hyderabad sanctioning the refund of Rs.128/- paid towards first premium without assigning any reasons whatsoever for invalidating the policy by which perhaps he means the rejection of the proposal. Some time later as could be seen from Ex.A1, a letter dated 22-9-1997 was received from the opposite parties setting out details of acceptance of the policy with effect from 31-3-1997. The said Ex.A1 is bilingual. As a matter of fact, Ex.B11 filed by the opposite parties and Ex.A1 are one and the same. While Ex.A1 did not contain even the initial of the issuing authority, Ex.B11 did contain initial as also a scribbling suggesting that it was the office copy of the respondents. It is conspicuous to note that in both these documents which embody the same matter and both of which are bilingual, the dates set out in the telugu portion were found rounded off by way of correction to substitute 30-6-1997 in the place of 31-3-1997 and 6 of 97 in the place of 3 of 97. Ex.B11 too is dated 22-9-1997. The complainant filed Ex.A2 envelope addressed to the deceased insured and the date stamp of the post office on the same is 21-9-1999. It is marked as Ex.A2. The opposite parties issued a memo dated 16-4-1998 ordering the refund of RPLI of Rs.128/- to Smt.D.Satyavathi describing the said amount as refund of premiums recovery effected from the final claim. This document is not marked on behalf of the complainant but its equivalent filed by the opposite party is marked as Ex.B1. This Ex.B1 appears to be in answer to the claim of the nominee of the deceased. The complainants ultimately insisted upon getting the full amount of Rs.50,000/- for which the insurance proposal was sent by the deceased according to their version.