I CI..R. 1984 March I [L. Loizou, A. Loizou. MALACHTOS, JJ.] DEMETRiOS HADJIANDREAS, Appellant-Plaintiff. ν THEATTORNEY-GENERALOFTHEREPUBLIC Respondent-Defendant. (Civil Appeal No. 5306). Social Insurance Law, 1964—Benefits thereunder—Payment of— Extinguished six months after the date on which the benefit is payable—Section 52
(6)of the Law. 5 10 15 20 The appellant, a person entitled to old age pension, received from the Ministry of Labour and Social insurance postal drafts for a total sum of C£24.200. On all these drafts it was clearly recorded that they must be presented for payment within six months of their date. The appellant failed to present them for payment within six months and when the Ministry refused to issue him with new drafts he filed an action claiming the said sum of CX24.200 mils. The tiial Court, relying on section 52
(6)* of the Social Insurance Law, 1964, dismissed his claim and hence this appeal. Held, thai from theissueof a postal draft thepayment becomes payable and the right to receive payment is extinguished six months after that date; that it is because of these explicit and unambiguous provisions of s, 52
(6)of the Law that the right of the appellant was found to have been extinguished and the dismissal of his claim by the learned trial Judge was in Law correct; accordingly the appeal must fail. Appeal dismissed. Section 52
(6)provides as follows: "Where a person entitled to benefit has notobtained payment, on the day onwhich thebenefit is payable, his right to receive payment shall not be'extinguished until six months after that date". 209 Hadjiandreas v. Attorne\-General
(1984)Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against thejudgment of the Distiict Court of Nicosia (HadjiNicolaou. D.J.) dated the 13th March, 1974 (Action No. 2320/72) whereby his claim for £24.200 mils as old age pension due and payable to him and/or as money due 5 by virtue of three postal drafts was dismissed. A. Georghiades. for the appellant. .V. Charalambous. Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 10 L. Loizou, J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice A. Loizou. A. Loizou, J.: The appellant, a person entitled to old age pension under the Social Insurance Law received fiom the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance three postal drafts, 15 one dated 16th November, 1967, for the sum of C£13.800 mils, the second dated 21st December, 1967, for the sum of C£5.000 mils and the third dated 25th January, 1968, for the sum of C£5.200 mils. On all three it was clearly recorded that they must be presented for payment within six months of their date. 20 As, however, the appellant had Hied a recourse under Aiticle 146 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a decision of the appropriate officer of the Social InsuranceOffice in respect of a reduced pension he was receiving, and the recourse was pending, he was advised not to present for payment the said 25 postal drafts. As a result the six months period lapsed and he asked the appropriate officers of the Social Insurance to issue him with new drafts so that he would be paid, but they refused to do so, hence the proceedings instituted in the Distiict Court of Nicosia claiming the sum of C£24.200 mils, as old 30 age pension due and payable to him and/οι as money du; by virtue of the three postal drafts. Tru learned tiial Judge having heard arguments from both sides on the legal aspect of the case as therewere no disputed facts, dismissed the action of the plaintiff but with no order 35 as to costs in view of the very particular circumstances of the case. It was pointed out by the learned trial Judge that from 210 I C.L.R. Hadjiandreas v. Attorney-General A. Loizou J. thewording of section 52
(6)of the Social Insurance Law, 1964. (that was the Law in force at the time) in contradistinction to other provisions ofthe Law and especially that of section 51
(2)which provide* that if the claimant shows that there was good 5 cause for the delay, the prescribed time shall be extended, the six months period provided in subsection 6of section 52of the Law within which a person entitled to benefit ha^ to obtain payment is absolute and after its expiiation every right is extinguished and for no reason can be extended. He further 10 found that once hefailed to obtain payment within six months from the date they became payable, the right to receive such benefitwasextinguished andconsequentlyhisclaimintheaction was dismissed as being barred. The learned trial Judge in answering thearguments advanced 15 on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff before him dealt also with the legal position regarding cheques and their presentation for payment and the consequences for not presenting them within a reasonable time from their issue. Wedo not intend to take upthat lineof argument asin our view the matter isduly regu20 lated by the provisions of the Social Insurance Law and in particular section 52(l)(a) and subsections 4 and 6 thereof, which provisions read as follows: "
(1)Where any person is entitled to any benefit, payment shall be made— 25 30 35 (a) at the employment exchange of the district where he lives, or at such post office or other office as the Chief Insurance Officer, after inquiry of the person may from time to time determine—
(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Law, the Chief Insurance Officei may, in a particular case or class of cases, arrange for thepayment of a benefit otheiwisethan weekly or otherwise than by means of postal drafts.
(6)Where a person entitled to benefit has not obtained payment, on ths day on which the benefit is payable, his right to receive payment shall not be extinguished until six months after that date". 211 Λ. Loizou J. Hadjiandreas \. Attorney-Central
(1984)From the aforesaid provisions it is abundantly clear that ihe payment of bencfils undei the Social Insuianct Law can beeffected inter alia at a PostOffice. Forthatpurpose a postal draft is an authorisation for paymtnt at such a Post Office. From the issue of a postal draft thepayment becomes payable and the right to receive paymmt is extinguished six months after that date. It is because of these explicit and unambiguous provisions of the Law that the right of the appellant was found to have b<xn extmguished and the dismissal of his claim by the learned trial Judge was in Law correct. For all the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances wc make no order as to costs Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. 212 5 10