BEFORE THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
GOMATI DISTRICT ::: UDAIPUR
CASE NO. C.C. 10 OF 2015
Petition filed on 19.03.2015
- Smti. Gouri Rani Paul Das &
- Shri Goutam Das - Complainant
Versus
- Shri Narayan Das,
Asst. Post Master,
R.K. Pur Post Office,
Udaipur &
- Shri Kamal Chakraborty,
Postal Assistant,
R.K.Pur Post Office,
Udsaipur. - Opposite Parties
PRESENT
Shri Asish Pal,
PRESIDENT
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
Gomati District, Udaipur
And
Shri Haridas Roy Barman
&
Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri)
MEMBERS
COUNSEL
For the Complainant - Shri Asif Iqbal,
Husband of the petitioner.
For the Opposite Party - Mr.Sishir Kumar Datta,
Learned Advocate.
Date of Argument - 07.08.2015
Date of Delivery of Judgment - 27.08.2015
J U D G M E N T
This case arises on the petition filed by one Shri Goutam Das alleging that some Post Office Officials misbehaved with his mother Gouri Rani Paul (Das), who is seriously ill and opened a SCSS Account in R.K.Pur Head Post Office. The two post office employees misguided and insulted his mother, did not updating the pass book and also deducted income tax without any reason.
2. The respondent side i.e. the employees of the Post Office appeared and filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that one Gouri Rani Paul (Das) opened an Account vide No.385516 in the Office of R.K.Pur Head Post Office. But the allegation of harassing and misguiding the account holder Smti. Gouri Rani Paul (Das) never met with the opposite parties and nothing informed or make any allegation to the Post Office Officials. Her income tax was not deducted and interest was counted.
3. Both the parties produced their respective evidence.
4. Shri Goutam Das, the complainant produced statement on affidavit of 4 witnesses. The photo copy of pass book, statement on account and withdrawal forms are also produced. Goutam Das, PW-1 stated that his mother filled up income tax from every year. But later, it was seen that income tax of Rs.338/- was deducted from the account of his mother. He claimed Rs.2 lakhs, as compensation for the illegal activities of the respondents i.e. Post Office Officials.
Smti. Gouri Rani Paul (Das), PW-2 repeated the same and stated that in 4 occasions she submitted the withdrawal form for withdrawal of the interest money from her account but the respondent refused to pay the money.
Shri Suman Roy Sarkar, PW-3 & Smti. Rina Debnath, PW-4 also supported the case of the petitioner. They also stated about the misbehavior of the respondents.
Respondents side, on the other hand, produced statement on affidavit of 6 witnesses namely (1) Shri. Narayan Ch. Das, (2) Shri Kamal Rn. Charaborty, (3) Smti. Papri Bhattacharjee, (4) Smti. Dipti Chakraborty, (5) Shri Debabrata Roy & (6) Sri Amitava Gope. All of them in their statement on affidavit stated that the employees of the Post Office never misbehaved with the petitioner or with his mother. But those witnesses were not produced before the Court for their cross examination. So, their evidences cannot be taken into consideration.
5. The allegation of Gouri Rani Paul (Das) that on 4 occasions she submitted the witnesses form is not supported by any other single piece of evidence. The withdrawal forms of different dates are produced. There is no seal or stamp of postal department to support that the forms were produced before any post office official. So, the deficiency of service as stated by the petitioner that ever after submission of the withdrawal forms the amount was not allowed to be withdrawn appears to be baseless. We have gone through the photo copy of statement of A/C No.385516 and on perusal of the account statement it is found that interest was counted in the year 2014-2015. Nothing found in the statement of account sheet to support that any amount was deducted for income tax. Total amount is lying in the A/c No.385516. the interest on this amount is not taxable at all. So, the that tax deducted from this A/c appears to be baseless and not supported by any evidence.
6. The two allegations actually comes out in respect of deficiency of service. One is for not updating the A/c and not allowing the mother of the petitioner to withdraw the amount and another is in respect of deduction of income tax. From the scrutiny of the Ledger (SB) with respect to A/c No.385516 it is found that no income tax was deducted from the A/c No.385516 but interest was counted in the year 2014-2015. There is also no evidence to support that withdrawal not allowed on submission of withdrawal form. We cannot understand why there was a dispute. It may be out of misunderstanding. But it is not a deficiency of service. Post Office employees must give due information to the customers and should behave properly with the customers, so that the customers can understand their problems. Post Office employees are also directed to provide adequate help and extend their helping attitude to their customers. But as the deficiency of service not proved by convincing evidence, the petition stands dismissed.
7. In view of above discussion, the petition is dismissed. The complainants are not entitled to get any compensation in this case.
8. The case stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Supply copy of this judgment to the parties at free of cost.
A N N O U N C E D
(Haridas Roy Barman) (Smti. Runu Das (Roy Choudhuri) (Asish Pal)
Member Member President
Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District Forum, Gomati District
Udaipur Udaipur Udaipur
