Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1719

SURENDRA S VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

SH. S.S VERMA

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                         

 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1719 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 06.09.2013 passed in C.C.No. 10/2013 by District Forum, Narsinghpur)

 

SURENDRA SINGH VERMA,

S/O LATE SHRI N. R. VERMA,

R/O INDRA WARD, KANDELI,

NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)                                                                    …       APPELANT.

 

Versus

 

POST MASTER,

HEAD POST OFFICE,

CIVIL LINE, NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)                                            ….    RESPONDENT.

                    

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN               :    PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI S. D. AGARWAL              :    MEMBER          

          

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                             Appellant in person.

                     Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for respondent.                                                                 

                                                                                      O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 02.08.2017)

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

                   

                        This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 06.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narsinghpur (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.10/2013 filed under Section 12 of the Act by which the complaint has been dismissed.

2.                     Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant has a savings bank account no 372774 with cheque book facility in Head Post Office, Narsinghpur. It is not disputed that he deposited the old cheque book on 15.01.2013 and he got the new cheque book on 15.03.2013. It is alleged that the cheque book was given after delay of two monts and during that period he could not withdraw the amount by withdrawal form, thus he filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent post office.  

 

-2-

3.                     The opposite party/respondent resisted the contention of the complainant and submitted that as per directions of the Reserve Bank Of India new cheque book had

to be supplied after taking back old cheque book and since the new cheque books were coming from the Central Office, thus there was  delay of two months which cannot be described inordinate.  It has been further submitted that the complainant could have withdrawn the amount by withdrawal form or by the old cheque book.  It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that the complainant/appellant withdrew some amount through withdrawal form. Thus there was no deficiency in service on their part.  The respondent has also pleaded that the complaint being frivolous, be dismissed. 

4.                     The Learned Forum, on appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties found that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant was ever stopped from withdrawing the amount through withdrawal form and he withdrew the amount also through withdrawal form. The District Forum found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent post office and dismissed the complaint.  Hence this appeal.

6.                     Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Appellant during arguments argument reiterated the same facts as have been narrated in the appeal that he had a savings bank account no. 372774 with the respondent post office and on 02.05.2005 after getting cheque book facility to withdraw the amount through withdrawal form was stopped and the amount can only be withdrawn through cheque.  On 15.01.2013 he deposited the old cheque book with 11 blank leaves and he was assured to give new cheque book within some days which was provided after a period of two months.   Countering the arguments of appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the the respondent was never stopped from withdrawing the amount and the new cheque book was delivered to him on 15.03.2013.  The Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent post office.

7.                     We have gone through the record of the Forum and appreciated the arguments of both parties.  It is an admitted position that looking to the notice pasted at Post Office regarding new C.T.S.Cheque books, the appellant deposited his cheque book in the post office on 15.01.2013 and he got the new cheque book on 15.03.2013.  The allegation of the appellant is that since he received the new cheque book late, he could not withdraw the amount, thus the post office has committed deficiency in service in

-3-

providing the cheque book belatedly.  Similarly he was stopped from withdrawing the amount through withdrawal form.  However, he failed to substantiate his allegations with the help of any documents.  It is true that the new cheque book was issued by the Central Office of the opposite party, thus delay occurred in supplying the same, the local post office cannot be held accountable, since the cheque books had to be issued by the Central office, country wide. Time of two months cannot be said to be inordinate.  So far as the allegation of the appellant that he was stopped from withdrawing the amount through withdrawal form is concerned, he failed to establish this allegation by any documentary proof or evidence, whereas he already withdrew the amount on two occasions through withdrawal forms.  Thus we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent post office.  The Forum, after scrutinizing the complaint in detail, recorded the finding that the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service is justified and deserves no intervention.

8.                     On the aforesaid grounds we find that the order of the Forum is justified and does not call for any interference.  The appeal, therefore, being devoid of substance, is dismissed and the order of the Forum is upheld.  No order as to cost.