Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1629

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAJENDRA RAJPUT - Opp.Party(s)

SH. RAJEEV JAIN

09 Oct 2018

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                             FIRST APPEAL NO. 1629 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 03.08.2013 passed in C. C. No. 120/2013 by the District Forum, Hoshangabad)  

 

1. POST MASTER, MAIN POST OFFICE,

    ITARSI (M.P.)   

 

2. PRAVAR ADHEESHAK,

    POST OFFICE, HOSHANGABAD DIVISION,

    HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                                                         …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus

 

GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUT,

W/O SHRI NANHEVEER SINGH RAJPUT,

R/O MALVIYA GUNJ, ITARSI,

TEHSIL-ITARSI, DISTRICT-HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)                                                 …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI S.D.AGARWAL             :    PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK   :    MEMBER     

         

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for appellants. 

                  Shri Gajendra Singh Rajput, respondent is present in person.                                                

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 09.10. 2018)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by S. D. Agarwal, Presiding Member:

                                   

                       This appeal is by the opposite party/appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad in CC No. 120/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed and the opposite party/appellant has been directed to make payment of the amount deposited under the Recurring Deposit Account along with interest payable within a month. Compensation of Rs.5000/- besides costs of Rs.2000/- has also been awarded.

2.                     The complainant/respondent is a consumer of the opposite party/appellant holding a Recurring Deposit Account No.130491.  The complainant was depositing Rs.1000/- per month. On maturity the amount with accrued interest was to be paid to the complainant but even on furnishing necessary documents in the post office, the employee of the post office misbehaved with him and the payment of maturity amount was not made in time.  The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant Post Office.   

3.                   The appellant/opposite party filed their written statement and refuted the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the employee who misbehaved with the complainant was punished in a disciplinary action.

-2-

4.                     The District Forum having found the opposite party deficient in service allowed the complaint and awarded compensation and costs.  

5.                     Against the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal on the ground that the complainant/respondent was asked to furnish necessary documents such as KYC before making payment to the complainant. As the complainant did not provide the KYC and sought undue favour being an Advocate. As per rules of the Department, he was to furnish necessary documents for verification. It is also stated in the appeal that the post office was obliged to make payment of amount deposited in RD account with interest as prescribed in rules. The District Forum has erred in awarding compensation and costs.

6.                     Heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent who appeared in person. Perused the record.

7.                     Learned counsel for appellant reiterated the facts as stated in the appeal memo.

8.                     Respondent argued that for the inconvenience caused to him, the District Forum has rightly awarded compensation and costs along with the amount deposited in the RD account with interest.

7.                     On perusal of record, we find that the complainant was entitled to get the amount deposited in the RD account along with accrued interest as per rules.  The District Forum therefore has rightly ordered for payment of the deposited amount along with interest.  On this count, the order of the District Forum cannot be interfered with.  As far as the order for compensation and costs is concerned, it is justified on the basis of the record that the complainant was misbehaved by the employee of the appellant post office, for which the employee was punished by the appellant post office.  The payment of RD Account deposits was not made in time to the complainant. Misbehavior and non-payment of RD deposit amount definitely caused the complainant mental agony. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed and the order of the District Forum is upheld.  No order as to costs.  

 

                    (S.D.Agrawal)                        (Dr. Mrs. Monika Malik)

                 Presiding Member                                 Member