SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES Vs. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsa is directed against the order, dated 28.02.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No.259 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 28.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saharsa (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint no.44 of 2011, whereby the Petitioner herein was directed to pay the assured amount of Rs.1 Lac to the Complainant on the death of his mother late Smt. Bimla Devi. The District Forum had also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/ - on account of undue harassment and legal expenses incurred by the Complainant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts giving rise to the Revision Petition are that on 22.03.2010 the mother of the Complainant had obtained a Rural Postal Insurance Policy for an assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/ -. In the proposal form, her date of birth was mentioned as 16.07.1961, which was supported by a photo Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. Unfortunately, the insured passed away on 30.01.2011. On her demise, the Complainant preferred claim for the assured sum. However, the claim was repudiated by the Postal Authorities on the ground that at the time of obtaining the policy she was more than 45 years of age and therefore, she was not eligible for the policy. It was stated that the proof of age furnished by her was not a valid standard age proof as per notification issued in the year 1994.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the refusal to entertain the claim, the Complaint, claiming the assured sum along with a sum of Rs.75,000/ - as loss and Rs.15,000/ - towards mental and physical harassment came to be filed. On consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the aforestated directions. Dissatisfied with the said order, the Petitioner preferred Appeal with the State Commission. As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the order of the District Forum, observing thus: