Delhi

StateCommission

A/433/2019

SMT. SHUKLA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SENIOR POST MASTER RAMESH NAGAR POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 29.08.2019

Date of Decision : 11.09.2019

First Appeal No. 433/2019

(Arising out of the order dated 03.04.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 835/12 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-East, Delhi.)

In the matter of :-

 

Smt. Shukla Devi,

B-151, Vivek Vihar,

Delhi-110095.                                                                   …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Senior Post Master,

Ramesh Nagar Post Office,

New Delhi-110015.                                                ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

 

Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                        Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                     Yes/No

 

Sh. O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Judgement

1. This order shall dispose of appeal against order dated 03.04.2019 passed by District Forum – East in CC No.835/2012 vide which the complaint was dismissed.  First of all, the appeal has been filed on 06.08.2019 and is apparently barred by limitation.  The appellant moved an application for condonation of delay on the ground that appellant is housewife and was fighting the case personally through her husband.  She could not afford to engage an advocate as advocates demanded heavy fees of Rs.40,000/- for recovery of Rs.10,000/-.  She is surviving on pension of her husband. She was not aware of time limit for filing appeal.  She received the order on 03.07.2019.  She has filed envelope in which she received the order.  The same contains date of dispatch as 17.06.2019.  It could not be believed that letter would have taken 16 days in local area of Delhi.

 

2. The appellant has also taken plea that her husband was suffering from Cataract and corneal Dystrophy was under treatment at Save Sight Centre, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg since 27.05.2019, was advised surgery of left eye on 01.07.2019 which was performed on 03.07.2019, reviewed on 04.07.2019 and 10.07.2019.

 

3. I did not find any ground for condonation of delay as operation of cataract is routine operation. Ignorance of law is no excuse.  The application is dismissed.  With this appeal must automatically stands dismissed as being barred by limitation.

 

4. Even on merits, I do not find any ground to interfere.  The appellant opened term deposit claim in post office on 27.05.1989.  Due to shifting of residence, the papers got misplaced.   When she found the papers, she applied for withdrawal on 13.03.2001. Post Office informed that account was closed on 05.07.1990 and she should approach Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, Post Office.  She gave application there on 09.05.2001 and was informed vide letter dated 27.07.2008 that it was joint B account, she should get confirmation from Kumari Leena whether she had received the payment or not.  Kumari Leena wrote a letter dated 31.07.2008 that she neither withdrawn the amount nor applied for duplicate passbook.  Complainant sent letters dated 02.08.2008 and 28.06.2002 but in vain.  She again sent letter dated 15.09.2009 and 02.06.2011 but nothing was done. In reply to RTI application dated 09.06.2012 she was informed that account closing voucher dated 05.07.1990 was weeded out on 24.08.1997 as preservation period was six years and so it was not possible to supply information sought for. 

 

5. The respondent filed WS pleading that complaint was barred  by limitation as same was filed after lapse of 22 years, the District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as account was opened at Janak Puri Post Office.  As per long book of the department account was closed on 05.07.1990 and maturity amount of Rs.10,972/- was duly paid either to complainant or Kumari Leena.  The POSB Manual Volume-1 Sub clause (3) of Rule 43 provided for procedure for closing without the availability of original passbook.

 

6. After going through the material on record and hearing the arguments, the District Forum found that appellant had not put on record the NCR (Non-cognizable Report), the long book was prepared by the department in the official capacity and authenticity thereof could not be disputed. 

 

7. I find no fault with the reasoning of District Forum. The complainant has not disclosed exact date as to when she found her passbook, from where.  She did not lodge any police report nor informed the post office about loss of passbook.  The document prepared by official in discharge of his duty carries presumption of regularity.

 

8. The District Forum has not decided the objection of limitation.  The complaint was apparently barred by limitation.  Merely corresponding does not extend the limitation. For this reliance may be placed on decision of National Commission in OP-55/08 titled as Hansa Wire Product Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 18.11.2011 and RP No.26/12 titled as Sebastian MD Vs. M.J. Devadas decided on 13.07.2012.

 

9. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed in limini.

 

10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

11. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

12. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)