No. 13.

AUTHOR- RABIDEB MUKHOPADHYAY, MEMBER

That the Opposite Party No. 1 is the branch post office of ‘India Post’ under the Department of the Ministry of Communication, Government of India offering amongst various other services, financial services in the form of investment in National Savings Certificate (NSC) for Tax Benefit of the depositors.  The OP No. 2 and 3 are the employees of the said office and the OP No.4 is the Chief Post Master General of the West Bengal Circle under the said Department of the Ministry of Communication, Government of India.

The complainant stated that the Complainant holds a Joint S.B. Account No. 3594709748 in their names in the office of the OP no. 1.

That the Complainant had previously invested in N.S.C. Schemes offered by the OP No. 1 and the said schemes had attained maturity on 31.03.2017.

The Complainant intended to reinvest an amount of Rs.64,000/- in their Joint names in new N.S.C for 5 years to enjoy the Income Tax benefit u/s 80C for the Financial Year 2016-17 with 8 percent  rate of interest per annum.

With such intention on 31^st day of March 2017 i.e. the last day of the Financial Year 2016-2017, the Complainant No.1 accompanied by his Agent Sri Chandra Sekhar Mondal went to the office of the OP No.1 and via his said Agent submitted new N.S.C Application Form for the re-deposit of the said maturity value, of previous N.S.C amounting to Rs.64, 000 (Sixty four thousand) only after complying with all necessary procedures.  The said Application form was handed over to the OP No.3 at about 10 a.m.

That the OP No. 3 credited the maturity value of the holder in S.B A/c No. 3394709748 but refused to transfer the Funds from S.B A/c to new N.S.C of the complainant for the Financial Year 2016-2017.  The photocopy of the S.B. Pass Books bearing A/c No. 3394709748 is marked as ANNEXURE-’B’

However, deliberately after the Counter hours (i.e. after 3 p.m.) OP No.3 returned back all the said documents handed over to him earlier, without marking the said application form with any serial number.  He refused to accept the said application without citing a single reason.

31.03.2017 was the last day of the financial year 2016-2017 and the complainant, not being able to invest in the N.S.C, lost the Tax benefit u/s.  80C for Financial Year 2016-2017.  For the amount of Rs.64, 000/-.

That on 31.03.2017 there was neither link failure nor any server problems, which might explain any due reason for non- acceptance / refusal by the OP No.3.

That the complainant submitted that the OP No. 3 with some ulterior and mala-fide motive has intentionally refused to accept the application for transfer of funds from S.B A/ c of the holder to new N.S.C. A/c.

That, such refusal amounts to deficiency of service within the meaning of Section 2(1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act.

That the matter was intimated by the complainant through the said agent, Chandra Sekhar Mondal to the OP No.2 vide letter dated 01.04.2017.

That the matter was also intimated to the OP No.4 vide letters dated 03.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 17.04.2017 and lastly on 15.05.2017 as a reminder through E-mail.

The photocopies of the said letters are annexed with the complaint being marked as ANNEXURE-’D’, in a series.

The complainant prayed for direction upon OPs to pay Rs.6, 658/-for loss toward tax exemption u/s. 80C benefit under N.S.C Scheme over totaling to Rs.64, 000/-, to pay a sum of Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) towards mental stress and physical agony and to pay a sum of Rs.3, 000/- (Rupees Three thousand) towards litigation cost.

Written Version

The OPs replied-

That in respect to the Para No.3 and 4 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant had one NSC and for which maturity value of Rs.64000/- had been paid on 31.03.2017 into one SB Account No. 3394709748 standing open in the name of the complainant and others at kasba, P.O. Kolkata Division.

            That in respect to the Para no. 5 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that if any person wants to purchase N.S.C then he/she should submit purchase application form at first.  But no purchase application form for NSC had been received from the complainant or from her agent on 31.03.2017.

That in respect to the Para No. 6 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant did not meet the SPM nor any postal official on 31.03.2017, the complainant claimed that she attended Kasba P.O. on 31.03.2017 is doubtful in nature and it should be proved by documentary evidence, otherwise it will not be trustable.  One agent namely Chandra Sekhar Mondal submitted in the name of the complainant duly signed and authorized by the complainant for discharge of the same and transfer of the maturity value to SB account No. 3394709748 standing open in the name of the complainant.  Besides, one purchase application form for NSC for Rs.24, 000/- was submitted by the said agent (not in the name of the complainant) on 31.03.2017.

That in respect to the Para No. 7 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that the allegation which has been made by the complainant at the Para No. 7 of the petition of complaint is that the Opposite Party No. 3 refused to transfer the funds from SB A/c to new N.S.C of the complainant for the Financial year 2016-2017 is totally false.  The NSCs were discharged and maturity value for Rs.64, 000/- was transferred to the SB Account of the complainant.  The complainant did not submit purchase application form.  Application of purchase of NSC for Rs.24, 000/- was also issued and the agent was paid eligible commission for this.

That in respect to the Para No. 8 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that allegation of refusal by the Opposite Party No. 3 is totally false.  Refusal of application for purchase of NSC of the complainant does not arise since no such application was submitted to the post office, neither by the complainant nor by her agent on 31.03.2017.

That in respect to the Para No.9 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that NSC is issued on the basis of submission of application of purchase of NSC and no such application was submitted to the post office, the department, by any way, may not be held responsible for not getting tax benefit by the complainant.

That in respect to the Para No.10 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that allegation of non- acceptance / refusal of the Opposite Party No. 3 on 31.03.2017 is totally false.  The office functioned smoothly on 31.03.2017, all Savings Bank related works were done with full satisfaction of the customers and SSA agents.  So. Refusal of application of purchase of NSC of the complaint through her agent does not arise.

That in respect to the Para No. 11 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that allegation of refusal which has been made by the complainant at the Para No. 11 of the petition of complaint is totally false and baseless.  All SSA agents including the agent of the complainant got their services from the counter on 31.03.2017.  Enclosed documents (Photocopy) will exhibit that the agent of the complainant had submitted an application for purchase of NSC for Rs.24, 000/- in the name of someone other than the complaint and the same was issued and the agent got his commission and the photocopy of the related documents are annexed hereto being marked as Annexure ‘A’.

That in respect to the Para No. 12 of the petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that the complaint of the complainant is baseless as she could not produce documentary evidence to justify her demands.  Therefore, the department of post is no way liable for deficiency in service U/S 2 (I) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act.

That in respect to the Para No. 13-14 your petition of complaint the Opposite Parties submitted that the complainant did not send any letter of complaint, one agent namely Chandra Sekhar Mondal submitted a complaint on behalf of Manjory Das before the Post Master, Kasba Post Office, Kolkata-700042 and after receiving  the complaint, inquiry has been carried out.  It has revealed that no application for purchase of NSC in the name of the complainant was submitted by agent Chandra Sekhar Mondal on 31.03.2017 at Kasba P.O. The complainant did not meet any of the Postal officials of Kasba P.O. Hence allegation of not rendering service to her is not at all acceptable and justified and all the allegation / allegations which have been made by Chandra Sekhar Mondal in his letters dated 03.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 17.04.2017 are all false and fabricated and all allegations of the E-mail dated 15.05.2017 said by Chandra Sekhar Mondal are all false and fabricated.

The real incident is that the complainant has been misguided by her agent Chandra Sekhar Mondal to make eye wash on his misdeeds of non-submission of application for purchase of NSC of the complainant to Kasba P.O. on 31, 03.2017 and this deprived the complainant as well as defamed the department and that the petition of complaint has no base and has no merit for contest.

                             Points for Discussion

      1.Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OPs,

2. Whether the Ops are deficient in non-accepting the application form for NSC,

3. Whether the complainants deserves relief.

                                Decisions with Reasons

1. We have perused the documents including the filled up forms for application for issue of NSC and withdrawal forms, copies of letters of several dates right from 31.03.2017 by the complainant/through agent, to the postal authorities and copy of judgement of Calcutta High Court in respect of writ petition No. 11654 (w) of 2016 and SSP of post offices, South Kolkata Division No.SB⁶ -II / 235 /06 /16-17 dated 11.01.2017 etc.   The simple point to decide is whether the complainant filed the application form with withdrawal forms to the OP-3 at counter no.2 in time.  Here only rests the resolution of the dispute.
2. It appears from complainant’s urgent letters dated 31.03.2017,(by her agent) 01.04.2017 written to OP- 2 that the same give an indication to the gesture of the complainant and her agent against OP- 3 refusing to accept the complainant’s application for NSC.  In the said complaint to the Post Master (OP-2), reference of previous complaints dated 29.11.2016 and 31.03.2017 against the same OP-3 (Nirmal Dey) at counter no.2.  The same issue has been made.
3. The agent of the complainant also sent complaints to OP-4 (Chief Post Master General) on 03.04.2017, 11.04.2017, 17.04.2017, 15.05.2017, all received with enclosures.  In the said complaints, the complainant expressed grievance as to the loss of income tax benefit u/s 80C of I. T. Act to the investor, for refusal by the OP-3 and also leading to loss of agent commission.
4. Had the complainant (Manjuri Das) not deposited the application form and withdrawal form through her agent duly filled in, as presented, for investment in NSC on 31.07.2017, she could not have filed such complaints against the Desk Assistant of Counter No.2 Nirmal Dey and, could not have pursued through agent such complaints with the Higher Authorities of the Postal Department.
5. More notable thing is that the postal authority (Post Master) could not file any such evidence that OPs sent reply to the complaints sent on stated days by the agent of the complainants, in spite of receiving the same. This attitude of OPs vindicates deficiency of OPs in rendering service to the complainant (by way of issuing NSC).  The Post Master General only after receiving the complaint had sent letter dated 12.04.2017 to the complainant’s agent with copies to SSPO South Kolkata Division and SPM (by name), Kasba P.O for taking necessary action and to send ATR.  But no report of action seemed to have been sent by the Kasba Post Master and no copy seemed to have been sent to the complainant or to her agent, Chandra Sekhar Mondal.

This also proves that there was something wrong focusing the complainant’s grievance upon OPs, which was not adhered to.

6. In response to complaint para-15 & 16, the OPs replied in WV that the complainant did not file complaint on 31/3/2017 but her Agent filed. What’s the difference? The Agent is an authorized one to all works on behalf of the customer and the OPs authorized the Agent to do so it is to be made clear that agents function at the post officer on behalf of their clients (such as the complainant here)and their such role is considered as the role of their customers / clients. Moreover, the OPs also stated that after enquiry, it revealed that no Application Form was submitted by the complainant/Agent. How can the OPs submit so without submitting cogent evidence? This could be considered if all the documents relating to such alleged Enquiry were submitted before us for consideration. 
7. Moreover, we clearly remind that during final argument, learned Advocate for OPs verbally stated that the Application and Withdrawal forms were submitted after 3.00 p.m. When we insisted on such oral admission, the postal employee standing beside him visibly whispered something to him and then the learned Advocate for the OPs backtracked from his point of submission.

This gesture and posture of OPs’ Advocate and the postal employee before the forum, indicate that something was being held back and that is nothing but suppression of truth.Even if the time crossed 3.00p.m. after submission of application and withdrawal forms, the same should have been accepted by the desk assistant, Nirmal Dey (OP-3) and NSC should have been issued, otherwise OP-3 and other OPs are deficient, as OP-3 is the functioning employee on behalf of other OPs.

8. We need not bother about the departmental proceedings against OP-3, Nirmal Dey for obvious reasons.
9. We do not intend to focus into the Agent’s Commission also as the Agent could derive it from subsequent investments.  Moreover, no commission is claimed by the complainant in the instant case also.

We are only concerned with the alleged loss of income tax benefit u/s 80 C of I.T Act on Rs.64, 000/- at the rate of 10 percent , that is Rs.6658/- as calculated by the complainant for the financial year 2016-17.

10. It also remains the fact that the complainant did not file any document regarding Return / filing of income tax.  So, it is not clear whether he would really avail himself of the benefit u/s 80C of the I.T Act.  However, as the complainant is entitled to the benefit, we may consider the small amount on the face of deficiency of OPs, and of OP-3 in particular.
11.  The complainant filed a copy of judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WP 11654(w) of 2016 as well as a copy of reference no.SB⁶ – 11 / 235 / 06 / 16-17 dated 11.01.2017 issued by SSP South Kolkata Division, regarding refusal of the postal employee of Kasba, P.O to accept deposit of the agent in time, wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court directed the postal authority to take such action so as to makeup the loss of the agent and the postal authority issued necessary directions.  The instant case is similar if not identical. We may derive the cue to settle the instant dispute.
12.  It appears, therefore, to us that the complainant invested Rs.64000/- and so she is a consumer under the OPs in terms of Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the C. P. Act by way of buying financial services from the OPs.

The OPs appear not to have rendered necessary service to the complainant, thereby leading her face financial loss to some extent.Therefore, OPs and OP-3 in particular discharging under other OPs are deficient u/s 2(1) (g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.

The complainant was subjected to such deficiency of OPs leading to her deprivation.So, the complainant deserves relief.

In the circumstances we are constrained to pass

                                                                    ORDER

                  That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs in terms of Section 13(2) (b) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended so far,

                 That the OPs are directed to make good of the complainant’s loss by paying Rs 6658/- , Rs.3000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony of the complainant u/s 14 (1) (d) of the Act, and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost, to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of this order, it needs to be mentioned that the Postal Authority shall be at liberty to realize such sums from the functioning employee, Nirmal Dey/OP- 3, if they deem it proper,

               That on failure of the OPs to comply with the above orders within the stipulated time, the complainant shall be at liberty to put the orders into execution u/s 27 of the Act ibid.

              Let copy of the order be handed over to the parties when applied for.