Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/237

Jai Parkash Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

sub Post Master, Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Balraj Singh Adv

05 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 237 of 09.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   05.01.2016 

 

Jai Parkash Jain son of Sh.Nem Chand, r/o H.No.385, Ward No.9, Purani Mandi, Mullanpur, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

The Sub Post Master, P.O.Mandi Mullanpur, District Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Balraj Singh, Advocate.

For OP                           :        Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Jai Parkash Jain against Ops by claiming that his father Sh.Nem Chand opened R.B.Account bearing No.598642 in the name of his grand son namely Gagan with OP. Death of Sh.Nem Chand took place and thereafter, complainant applied for withdrawal of amount lying in the said R.B.Account in the month of March, 2014. As per the instructions of OP, the complainant completed all the formalities and thereafter, visited the office of OP for so many times continuously for 9 months for getting the amount released. Each time, OP procrastinated the matter. The amount was released in favour of the complainant after more than 9 months without payment of any interest and that is why, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 16.2.2015 for calling upon the OP to pay interest for the period from March 2014 to December 2014. Directions sought to OP to pay interest along with compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                Op filed written statement by admitting that Sh.Nem Chand (now deceased) had opened R.B.Account bearing No.598642 in the name of his grand son namely Gagan and complainant applied for withdrawal of the amount in question in March 2014. However, more than 1 month was consumed for completing the requisite formalities. SPM informed the complainant during his visit about the financial benefits that will accrue if the payment got released on maturity after 5 years. Complainant choose to avail the payment on maturity that is on or after 7.5.2017 and took away the passbook. Later in August 2014, complainant requested for issue of pre-mature sanction for release of the amount and amount was released vide memo No.D-70 dated 30.8.2014. Complainant was informed about the sanction and he attended the post office in the last week of December 2014. Payment of Rs.22,488/- including the principal amount of Rs.21,000/- and interest of Rs.1488/- as due up to 27.12.2014 had been released in favour of the complainant through cheque No.183418 dated 27.12.2014. That payment was received by the complainant on 31.12.2014. Due services have been provided by the OP to the complainant as per rules and procedures framed by the department and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.A.S.Sekhon, Superintendent of Post Office, Ludhiana and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                From the pleadings and produced evidence, there remain no dispute that R.B.account in question was opened by Sh.Nem Chand (now deceased) in the name of his grand son namely Gagan and complainant approached OP for pre-mature release of the amount in March 2014. That amount could have been   released only on completion of requisite formalities because the amount was deposited in the name of minor admittedly. So, assertions contained in affidavit Ex.RA are correct that complainant took about one month in completing the necessary formalities.

7.                Complainant has not disclosed the split of due principal amount and interest amount on the date of maturity, but Op has given the split of that amount in pleadings as well as through affidavit Ex.RA. So virtually interest on FDR has been paid up to 27.12.2014. That payment of Rs.21,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1488/- as interest admittedly has been received by the complainant through cheque Ex.C7 dated 27.12.2014 on 31.12.2014 as revealed by pay slip Ex.C8. Even through Ex.C5, information under Right to Information Act, 2005 provided to the complainant qua payment of amount of Rs.22,488/- through cheque No.183418 dated 27.12.2014. If really the due amount of interest uptill December 2014 would not have been paid by the OP to the complainant, then complainant would have disclosed the details of the non paid interest amount. However, those details have not been submitted and nor the complainant has mentioned the principal amount anywhere in the complaint or in his affidavit Ex.CA and as such virtually the complainant wants to avail relief by suppressing the material facts. Those material facts qua the principal amount and due interest amount have been disclosed by OP through written statement and submitted affidavit and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. As interest upto December  2014 has been paid and as such this complaint filed on 9.4.2015 is virtually for abusing the process of law. Being so, complaint merits dismissal with costs, which needs to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund.

8.                Complainant is not a consumer, but consumer is Gagan, in whose name, R.B.account was opened by Sh.Nem Chand(now deceased). It is not at all mentioned in the complaint that the said Gagan is minor, though contended during the course of arguments and as such, virtually the complaint has been filed for benefit of Gagan without details of due representation. If the R.B.Account opened in the name of Gagan, then the complaint should have been filed for and on behalf of Gagan by the complainant, but the same is not done and as such there is defect in the frame of the complainant even.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- awarded against the complainant. These costs of Rs.1000/- will be deposited by the complainant in Consumer Welfare Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of this order. Copies of this order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                         (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:05.01.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.