Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/167

Agia Wati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

KuldeepSingh

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 167 dated 08.09.2020.                                                       Date of decision: 08.03.2022. 

 

Agia Wati aged 87 years wife of Late Shri Ram Dev, resident of House No.14139 (Old) and House No.14145 (New), Bhagwan Nagar, Ward No.69, Street No.10, Dholewal, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Post Master, Post Office, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana-141003.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Near Chowk Ferozepur Road, Bharat Nagar Road, Model Gram, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Rohit Thapar, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of the unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that the complainant holds post office account No.1698419 (Old) and 5503266551 (New) with Post Office, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana since 03.12.2013. The account is joint with Renu Gupta, who is daughter-in-law of the complainant and who had accompanied the complainant to the post office when the account was opened. The complainant has been operating the account since 2013. The complainant had also deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the post office MIS in the year 2013 itself and the interest of Rs.2100/- accrued every monthon the amount invested in the MIS scheme used to be credited in the savings account of the complainant regularly. The savings account is an account either or survivor. The entire amount in MIS was deposited by the complainant personally and the joint holder of Renu Gupta never contributed any amount at any point of time. Of late, complainant’s daughter-in-law Renu Gupta, her son and grandson started misbehaving with the complainant. They refused to maintain and look after the complainant and also harassed and humiliated her. They also grabbed 250 grams of gold belonging to the complainant and turned her out of their house in the month of June 2020. Presently the complainant is residing with her daughter Saroj Kumari. The complainant has already disowned and disinherited her son, daughter-in-law and grand children from all her moveable and immoveable properties. The complainant has also executed a registered will dated 21.07.2020 in favour of her daughter Saroj Kumari. The complainant has further executed a gift deed bearing Vasika No.2020-21/106/1/1819 dated 02.07.2020 in favour of her daughter Saroj Kumar. After the complainant was turned out of the house by her son and daughter-in-law, the complainant withdrew the amount of Rs.3,21,000/-  from MIS scheme in the month of June 2020. However, the interest of the said amount was deposited in the savings account which is joint with Renu Gupta. Now the officials of the OPs are not releasing the amount of interest to the complainant to give undue advantage and favour to Renu Gupta. The complainant requested the OPs a number of times to release the amount of interest to the complainant, but to no avail. The OPs have informed the complainant that the account has become dormant. However, in this regard, no notice was issued by the OPs. The complainant is a senior citizen of 87 years of age and she has been harassed by the officials of the OPs. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 24.07.2020 upon the OPs, but despite that they have not released the amount to the complainant. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to allow the complaint to withdraw the interest amount of Rs.1,88,226/- along with future interest accrued, if any, and further the OPs be made to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.   

2.                The complaint has been resisted by OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OPs, the complainant holds a savings account bearing No.5503266551 (new) and 1698419 (old) which is joint with Renu Gupta who is the daughter-in-law of the complainant. The account was opened on 03.12.2013. The complainant had also opened a MIS account  No.5503822601 for Rs.3,00,000/-. As per the instructions of the complainant, monthly interest of MIS account used to be credited to her savings account which is a joint account under the category of either or survivor. The amount of Rs.3,19,003/-  lying in the MIS account has been got released by the complainant on 04.07.2020 which was paid to the complainant through cheque No.066846 dated 04.07.2020. The complainant also wanted the payment of the savings account, but as the account had gone dormant due to non-operation by the account holders, the payment from the said account could not be released until the account was made active as per the rules of the Department of Posts. According to Para no.2 of point No.55 of POSB CBS Manual of the Department, an account can be made active on submission of KYC documents as well as fresh application by the concerned depositors at the concerned post office. These facts were brought to the notice of the complainant when she obtained the payment of MIS account. However, the complainant failed to comply with the rules of the department and instead issued a legal notice dated 24.07.2020 and now she has filed the present complaint. It has been denied if the officials of the OPs asked the complainant to introduce Renu Gupta, as joint account holder in her savings account. The savings account was never operated upon by the account holders from 01.04.2014 and therefore, the system automatically made the account dormant. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as incorrect and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C10 and Ex. C8, Ex. C8A, Ex. C8B, Ex. C8C and Ex. C11 to Ex. C13 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered joint affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Kulwant Singh, Superintendent of Post offices, Ludhiana city Division, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments on behalf of the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6.                The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The only objection raised by the OPs against the release of the account lying in the savings bank account of the complainant, which is joint with her daughter-in-law Renu Gupta, is that due to its non-operation from 01.04.2014 onwards, the account has gone dormant and the complainant has to get it revived by submitting the KYC documents. It is not disputed that in the savings account in question, only the interest, which had accrued in MIS account, has been deposited from time to time. It is also not disputed that the entire amount in MIS account was invested solely by the complainant and no contribution was made by her daughter-in-law Renu Gupta nor she is a joint holder in the MIS account. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the money lying in the savings account, even though it is joint with Renu Gupta, belongs exclusively to the complainant. The complainant has claimed that her relations with her son, daughter-in-law Renu Gupta have gone sour after she was maltreated by them and was turned out of the house by her son and daughter-in-law with the result that presently she is residing at the mercy of her married daughter. As pointed out by the counsel for the complainant, the complainant apprehends that her daughter-in-law would not co-operate in getting the account revived as presently she is not on good terms with the complainant. However, in our considered view, taking into consideration the fact that money deposited in the savings account exclusively belongs to the complainant only, as only the interest of MIS account of the complainant was transferred into this account, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed to release the amount lying in the savings account of the complainant after obtaining necessary KYC documents from the complainant and reviving the account.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant shall submit necessary KYC documents with the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon which the OPs will revive the savings account in question and release the payment lying in the account to the complainant within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such documents from the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Agia Wati Vs Post Master                          CC/20/167

Present:       Sh. Rohit Thapar, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the complainant shall submit necessary KYC documents with the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon which the OPs will revive the savings account in question and release the payment lying in the account to the complainant within a further period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such documents from the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.