Punjab

StateCommission

FA/499/2014

The Post Office Sunam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pritam Singh & others - Opp.Party(s)

Namit Kumar & Ravinder Pal Singh

06 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.499 of 2014

 

                                                Date of Institution: 05.05.2014

                                                Date of Decision:  06.01.2016

 

1.      The Post Office, Sunam, through its Head Post Master, Sunam  District Sangrur.

 

2.      The Head Post Office, Sangrur through its Head Post Master, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

 

3.      Union of India through its Secretary, Post and Telegraph  Department, New Delhi.

 

                                                               …Appellants/Opposite parties

                             Versus

 

1.      Pritam Singh,

 

2.      Karam Singh sons of Sh. Gurnam Singh (deceased), both  residents of village Humbalwas Jakhepal, District Sangrur.

 

3.      Bharpur Kaur D/o Shri Gurnam Singh (deceased) now wife of  Gurjeet Singh, resident of Village Ghanduan, District Sangrur.

 

4.      Baljit Kaur D/o Shri Gurnam Singh (deceased) now wife of   Nirbhai Singh.

 

5.      Bhajan Kaur D/o Shri Gurnam Singh (deceased) now wife of Gurjeet Singh both residents of Village Kanakwal Kalan,     District Sangrur.

 

6.      Jasmail Kaur D/o Shri Gurnam Singh (deceased) now wife of   Mithu Singh, resident of Village Maidewas, District Sangrur.

 

 

                                                                                                                                     ..Respondents /Complainants

                                                           

                                                 First Appeal against order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal                                                         Forum,  Sangrur

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellants                 : None

          For the respondents              : Sh.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate

         . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint), challenging order dated 17.02.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, accepting the complaint of the complainant by directing the complainants to submit the affidavits and indemnity bond of double of the claimed amount in question, whereupon the OPs were directed to release the amount to them with up to date interest, as per rules. It also awarded composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- to complainants. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite parties now appellants in this appeal.

2.      The complainants have filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that Gurnam Singh expired on 20.09.2008 leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. The amount of Rs.58439/- was lying deposited in account no.799052 with OP No.1 at Sunam in the credit of above Gurnam Singh. OP No.1 refused to release the said amount to complainants being legal heirs of Gurnam Singh without succession certificate issued by the competent court. The complainants further averred that they are prepared to furnish the indemnity bonds and affidavits to the satisfaction of the OPs in this regard. The complainants have, thus, filed the complaint praying that the OPs be directed to release the amount of  Rs. 58,439/- to the complainants, as legal heirs of Gurnam Singh (since deceased) along with interest, which accrued thereon, besides payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. Preliminary objection was raised by OPs that Gurnam Singh S/o Kehar Singh, resident of VPO Jakhepal opened a saving A/c bearing No.799052 with initial deposit of Rs.100/- at Sunam Sub Office on 05.06.2007. Gurnam Singh nominated Ashok Kumar son of Soni Ram, Old Mandi Sunam, as his nominee, vide registration no.67073 dated 05.06.2007. No information regarding death of Gurnam Singh was furnished to OPs except legal notice dated 06.03.2013 sent by Sh. Pawan Kuamr Gupta Advocate, Sangrur. No claim was lodged with the OPs by the complainant or the nominee. It was not possible for the OPs to sanction the claim in the absence of any claim. As per the departmental rules, nominee can claim the amount only by producing succession certificate to the postal authorities obtained from the competent civil court. On merits, OPs admitted this fact that Gurnam Singh was account holder with the OPs. It was further averred that amount of Rs.63007/- was lying deposited in the account of Gurnam Singh (since deceased) on 01.04.2013. No such claim was lodged with the OPs. The nomination of Gurnam Singh is registered in the name of Ashok Kumar son of Soni Ram, vide registration no.67073 dated 05.06.2007. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, Ex.C-1 copy of death certificate of Gurnam Singh, affidavit of Pritam Singh nominee of the complainant Ex.C-7 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.  As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of D.S Suri, Superintendent Post Offices, Postal Division, Sangrur Ex.OP-3 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Sangrur, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order of District Forum Sangrur dated 17.02.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Sangrur dated 17.02.2014, the opposite parties now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal, as none appeared for the appellants during the arguments in this case. We have examined material evidence on the record, besides pleadings of the parties. It is an undisputed fact in this case that Gurnam Singh (since deceased) deposited the amount of Rs.58,939/- in his account no.799052 maintained with OP No.1. Copy of the death certificate of Gurnam Singh is Ex.C-1 proving his date of death, as 20.09.2008. Copy of legal notice is Ex.C-2 dated 06.03.2013 and reply to legal notice is Ex.C-3 sent by the OPs. Ex.C-4 is affidavit of the complainant. Ex.C-5 is copy of the passport in the name of Gurnam Singh showing the amount of Rs.60584/- in his account.  Ex.C-6 is letter of indemnity. Ex.C-7 is affidavit of Pritam Singh nominee of the complainant on the record. OPs relied upon the relevant rules Ex.OP-1. Ex.OP-2 is copy of account opening form. Ex.OP-3 is affidavit of D.S Suri Superintendent Post Offices Postal Division Sangrur.

6.      From perusal of affidavit Ex.OP-3 of D.S Suri Superintendent Post Offices, Postal Division Sangrur, it has transpired that complainant sent legal notice dated 06.03.2013 through Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, Sangrur to them. They sent reply dated 09.03.2013 to the legal notice. He further stated that legal heirs could claim the amount only by producing succession certificate to the postal authorities obtained from competent civil court. He further stated that the amount of Rs.63007/- was lying deposited, as balance in the account of Gurnam Singh (since deceased) on 01.04.2013. He further stated that Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Soni Ram, Old Mandi Sunam has been appointed, as nominee by Gurnam Singh, vide registration no.67073 dated 05.06.2007. The nominee can receive the amount and give the valid discharge therefor.

7.      The District Forum relied upon law laid down in Shanti Devi  vs. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, reported in  2006(3) CLT 695 (NC) and observed that solution cum justice oriented approach is need of the hour. It requires time, energy and money to obtain a succession certificate. Parties should not be forced to take such a long expressive and tiresome route. If other heirs of the deceased give consent on an affidavit or on due indemnification and have no objection, then the Bank should release the amount in favour of the complainant along with other heirs. This view has been expressed by National Commission in the above-referred authority.

8.      Even OPs submitted written reply to the legal notice Ex.C-3 produced by the complainant, wherein it is stated that there is no question to produce succession certificate because the amount involved in this case is below of Rs.1 lac. This admission of the Ops that where the amount involved is below Rs.1 lac; then no such succession certificate is required to be proved. Undoubtedly, though nominee can give the valid discharge under Section 39 of the Nomination Act, yet the nominee collects the amount and gives valid discharge on behalf of legal heirs. Ultimately, it is the legal heirs, who are to receive the amount from the nominee. Only for departmental purposes a nominee has been brought into picture to give the valid discharge. On the basis of law laid down by National Commission in Shati Devi vs. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank (supra); party should not be forced to such a long expensive and tiresome route to obtain succession certificate, when he further gives consent or affidavit on due identification and have no objection, than the Bank should release the amount in favour of the complainant along with other heirs.  The analogy of this law laid down by National Commission is attracted to this case in our view.

9.      In view of our above discussion, we find that the District Forum has passed a just and reasonable order in this case, which needs no interference in this appeal. Resultantly, order of the District Forum Sangrur dated 17.02.2014 is affirmed in this appeal and appeal preferred by the OPs now appellants is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.    The appellants have deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainants in equal shares by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the complainants in equal shares after 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

12.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

January 6, 2016                                                                  

(ravi)