POST MASTER S B TIRUVARUR Vs. SUBBULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties, two Officers of the Postal Department, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum are the appellants.

(2.) The complainant Subbulakshmi averred in her complaint that her husband Krishnamurthi was a subscriber to the post office savings bank recurring deposit account under Protective Savings Scheme from 3.3.93 in Tuticorin and he was paying a monthly subscription of Rs.10/-. The Account number was 936852. Under this scheme if the subscriber dies during the maturity period his heirs will be entitled to Rs.10,000/-. The complainant's husband died on 7.5.93. When requested for payment, the opposite parties required birth Extract of her husband. The birth of the complainant's husband has not been registered anywhere and therefore she could not produce birth extract. But at the time of joining the scheme, the age of her husband was 51 years and that has been accepted by the opposite parties and therefore no birth certificate is necessary but however, the opposite parties are refusing to pay Rs.10,000/- to which he is entitled to. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-together with damages of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The opposite parties contended that the deceased husband of the complainant joined the Recurring Deposit Scheme and he was subscribing Rs.10/-. For any one to get the benefit of Protected Savings Scheme certain conditions are to be satisfied. One such condition is that the deceased must be within 18 years and 53 years of age at the time of joining the Recurring Deposit. In the instant case, since there is no proof of age of the deceased, there must be some evidence of the age of the deceased to show that at the time of joining the scheme he was within 18 years and 53 years as stated above. The complainant was asked to get a birth extract. But, she did not produce one. Therefore, she cannot get the benefits under the Protected Savings Scheme. It was further contended that under the Protected Savings Scheme, if the complainant is entitled to the benefits she will be entitled to the full maturity value. "in the written version the amount of maturity value has not been mentioned but however in the appeal grounds it has been mentioned as Rs.800.30. "