Complaint No: 37 of 2022.

                                                           Date of Institution: 22.03.2022.

                                                                    Date of order:01.12.2023.

Shivam Sundaram Son of Shiweshwar Dayal Pandey, resident of R.K. Niwas, Radha Colony Batala District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                 …....Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                 VERSUS

1.       Post Master Main Post Office, Bhabua M.D.G, District Kaimur, Bihar Pin Code – 821101.

2.       Government of India, Director of Accounts (Postal) Patna, Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post office, Bihar. Pin Code – 821115.

                                                                                                                                                   .....Opposite Parties.                                                                                

                                        Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Chanderkant Mahajan and Sh.Gurjot Singh, Advocates.

             For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Varun Gosain, Advocate.         

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Shivam Sundaram, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Post Master etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that previously the complainant had purchased Post Office Saving Products, National Saving Certificate Vide serial No. 5 N S/ 07DE 250623 to 5 N S/ 07DE 250637 of amount of Rs.5,000/- each on dated 22.01.2016 from the OP No. 1 which total amount was Rs.75,000/-. It is further pleaded that at the time of purchase of said National Saving Product, OP No. 1 assured that the maturity date of the above National Saving Certificate is 22.01.2021. It is further pleaded that after the date of maturity of above said National Saving Certificate the complainant approached to the OP No. 1 many times to receive the maturity amount but the OP No. 1 used to evade complainant regularly. It is further pleaded that after so many request complainant had given written request to the OP No. 1 on dated 25.05.2021 and OP No. 1 issued a cheque No. 207346 dated 26.07.2021 of Rs.1,15,590/- (One lakh fifteen thousand five hundred ninety rupees only) of A/c No. 11134079681 of State Bank of India Branch SASARAM in favour of the complainant with assurance that the cheque will be honored as and when presented for encashment. It is further pleaded that when the said cheque was presented in the bank for payment but the same was dishonored vide Memo dated 18.09.2021, 21.09.2021 on account of "Kindly contact Drawer / Drawee Bank and please present again". It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 considerably failed to comply with the provisions of the law and had also failed to discharge liability from OP No. 1 A/c No. 11134079681. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 had issued a cheque which is bad for value and thereafter had got the same dishonored intentionally and willfully. It is further pleaded that the complainant again approached the OP No. 1 personally so many times but they orally told that they have informed to the OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 will contact and will issue cheque of maturity amount of above said National saving certificates, but all in vain. It is further pleaded that the complainant is still facing unnecessary and unwanted harassment due to attitude and negligent behavior of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the OP No. 1 is sub office of the OP No. 2 and are bound to remove the defect of technicality of product sold by their office to customers as such the opposite parties are legally and lawfully bound for each and every act and design of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to issued the cheque for maturity amount with immediate effect and also to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him physical and mental harassment and financial loss. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deem it fit may also be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that instant complaint filed against the opposite parties by the complainant is not maintainable in eye of law as well as on facts. It is further pleaded that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties and the complaint is hit by provisions of Limitation Act. It is further pleaded that no cause of action was ever been arose to the complainant to file this case before this Ld. Commission. It is pleaded that upon written request of the complainant, the OP No. 1 issued the National Savings certificates as per National Savings Certificate Rules meaning thereby that there was and is an agreement or contract in between the complainant and the opposite parties to perform specific act as per provision as laid down under N.S.C. Rules as amended time to time as well as there exists a contract that opposite parties will pay the maturity amount after maturity of the said certificate. It is further pleaded that this fact clearly shows that the opposite parties render service, if any, under a contract of personal service although the opposite parties are not rendering any service but to act for welfare and benefit of public at large because 80% of deposited amount of saving certificates is being paid to the concerned State Government and  as per Section-100 of C.P. Act-2019 the provisions of this Act Shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. It is further pleaded that National savings certificate Rules is a complete rule having the provisions of issuance, lock-in period, maturity time etc. and apart from this, the Government of India guaranteed to pay the entire amount mentioned in the certificate. It is further pleaded that the complainant is at no point of imagination can be treated as consumer, because he has not purchased goods or hired service of the opposite parties for consideration as stated above, he had purchased N.S.C. under a specific Rule made by Government of India. It is further pleaded that  from perusal of facts mentioned in the complaint and relief sought for by him, it is clear that this is a case of specific performance of contract or in the alternative for refund of money and as such it is a matter considered by Civil Court and not by this Hon’ble Commission. It is further pleaded that the objective of Consumer Protection Act is to settle consumer's dispute and in the present case, the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties and there is no consumer dispute involved because as per return memo of Bank, the cheque in question is not dishonored rather the Bank requested the complainant "Kindly contact Drawer/Drawer Bank and please present" but since then he never contacted the Drawer/Drawer Bank and as such he failed to comply the request made in the return memo and filed this complaint with motive to harass the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that as per existing provisions, the Post office will pay the maturity amount through cheque or by transfer in Saving Account held in the same Post office. It is further pleaded that in this case a cheque had been issued and the cheque issued by the Post office is manual cheque and is being cleared manually that is why the drawee bank issued return memo with said comment. It is further pleaded that the complainant sent Advocate notice dated 16.11.2021 i.e. expiry of validity of cheque although as per his version, the said cheque had lastly been returned by the Bank on 21.09.2021 with request to issue cheque but it is surprising enough that said original cheque is still lying with him and without depositing the same in the office of the Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office no fresh cheque could be issued and as such no cause of action ever arose to the complainant to file this case. It is further pleaded that it is important to mention here that Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office is regularly issuing cheques against the maturity value and are encashed by the drawee bank on regular basis without any objections. It is further pleaded that the complainant has made OP No. 2 as "Government of India, Director of Accounts (Postal) Patna, Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office, Bihar, Pin code - 821115" who all have a different identity and address? It is further pleaded that Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post Office having its office at Sasaram, Director of Accounts (Postal) having its office at G.P.O., Patna and Government of India is at New Delhi and all has different works. It is further pleaded that the Government of India promises to pay the amount mentioned in the certificate after the date of maturity so the question of assurance of the OP No. 1 has no meaning. It is further pleaded that so far question of honour or encashment of cheque is concerned it is upon the drawee bank to honour and clear the cheque because the cheque in question had been issued by the Postmaster, Sasaram on behalf of Government of India and that is why in return memo outward clearing (CTS) it has been comment "kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present. It is further pleaded that the said cheque is issued manually and the drawee bank did not send manually. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned that under what circumstances and why he purchased the said certificates from Bhabhua (Bihar) Post office although he is resident of Batala District Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that as per rule of Post office, the complainant could take payment by cheque of maturity amount from any Post Office situated in any corner of India. It is further pleaded that the cheque is being issued after complete discharge of the certificate and fresh cheque shall be issued after cancelling the previous cheque. It is further pleaded that in the present case the complainant has not deposited the cheque in original in the office of Postmaster, Sasaram Head Post office and also not complied the instruction of return memo of his bank.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shivam Sundaram, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed reply.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by both the parties.                                

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased NSC worth Rs.75,000/- with maturity date as 22.01.2021. It is further argued that on maturity complainant had approached the opposite parties for receiving the maturity amount but after considerable delay opposite parties issued cheque Ex.C20 in favour of the complainant. However, on presentation of the cheque said cheque was dishonoured by the bank vide memo Ex.C21. It is further argued that failure to get the cheque encashed amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.       On other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that respondent No.1 issued NSC certificates as per rules and on maturity cheque was issued in favour of the complainant. It is further argued that the cheque in question was not dishonoured rather the bank requested the complainant to contact the drawer bank and please present but the complainant never contacted the drawer bank and failed to comply the memo and has filed this present false and frivolous complaint. It is further argued that cheque was issued by the post office is manual cheque and was to be cleared manually and that is why the drawee bank issued memo with said comment. It is further argued that complainant has not returned the original cheque to the opposite parties and as such no fresh cheque could be issued unless the old cheque is returned by the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

11.     It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased NSC worth Rs.75,000/- from the opposite parties. Copies of which are Ex.C1 to Ex.C15. It is further admitted fact that date of maturity of the said certificates was 22.01.2021. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties had issued maturity amount vide cheuqe dated 26.07.2021 Ex.C20. It is further admitted fact that said cheque was dishonoured vide memo Ex.C21 with remarks "Kindly contact drawer/drawer bank and please present".

12.     The issue for adjudication before this Commission is whether the opposite parties can withheld the maturity amount of the complainant. We have gone through the evidence on record. Perusal of National Saving Certificates shows that maturity dates on the same are 22.01.2021 and the complainant had given letter Ex.C22 for payment of maturity amount and had made request for issuance of cheuqe/demand draft or to transfer the amount in the account mentioned below. Since it is admitted fact that cheque Ex.C20 was dishonoured. It was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to issue fresh cheque but opposite parties kept on delaying the matter without any reasonable excuse inspite of fact that complainant got served legal notice dated 16.11.2021 Ex.C16. The only excuse given by the opposite parties is that complainant failed to return the original cheque but we are of the view that the return of the said excuse is not a reasonable excuse and withholding of maturity amount and dishonor of cheque amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

13.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay the maturity amount i.e. Rs.1,15,590/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 26.07.2021 till realization. Opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental tension, harassment including costs of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.     

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Dec. 01, 2023                                                Member

*YP*