SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE Vs. T PARIJATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Respondent No. l,Mrs. T. Parijatham had filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore against the present petitioners, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Coimbatore Division and Director of Postal Accounts, Madras who had been arrayed as Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and Smt. K.T: Damayanthi as Opposite Party No. 3 for directions to be issued to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 32,241/-being the Group Insurance Scheme and Pension Fund consequent on the death of her husband. Rs. 10,000/- were also claimed for mental agony. The District Forum vide detailed order allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 (who are now petitioners) to pay Rs. 32,241 /- in respect of Group Insurance Scheme and Saving Fund to the complainant. Rs. 1,000/- were awarded as compensation for mental agony. Feeling aggrieved against that Order the present petitioners filed appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras. The said commission allowed the appeal in part and order of the District Forum was modified to the extent that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. the Present petitioners were directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 16,120.50. That part of the order of District Forum by which compensation was allowed was also set-aside.

(2.) As this is a Revision petition it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the complainant's husband was employed in the Postal department as a Postman and he died in harness on 23rd November, 1990. The department paid Rs. 32,241/- as insurance and saving fund to Smt. K.T. Dhamayanthi (Opposite Party No. 3 in the original complaint) who is the mother of the deceased. According to complainant the said amount ought to have been paid to her. Before the State Commission on behalf of the present petitioners who were appellants therein had urged that the nomination under the Group Insurance Scheme had not been changed by the deceased. The nomination was in favour of his mother as nominee. The State Commission placed reliance upon Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 1986 issued by the Ministry of Finance which lays down that if a member of the Group Insurance Scheme has a family he can nominate only a member or members of hi s family and any nomination given before marriage of the Government servant becomes invalid after marriage. In the present case the deceased has made the nomination in favour of his mother before his marriage which automatically became invalid after his marriage. Admittedly, the Department did not care to choose to take further nomination from the deceased-insured. As earlier nomination had become invalid thus there was no nomination and thus the department ought to have made the payment under the Group Insurance Scheme after ascertaining the heirs of the deceased. No such step was adopted by the Department.

(3.) The deceased had left only his mother and widow as his heirs and both were entitled under Hindu law in equal shares to the amount due under that Scheme. The Department made the mistake in making payment of whole of the amount to the mother of the deceased. Hence the Department is guilty of negligence in the performance of its duty. We do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Accordingly we dismiss this Revision Petition. Revision petition dismissed.