West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/15/8

Nandita Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superintendent, Suri Head Post office, India Post - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

Shri Biswa Nath Konar – President.

            The case of the complainant Nandita Das, in brief, is that she was an MIS A/c holder being A/c No. 7045611. That on 13.07.2004 the complainant opened the said MIS A/c depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- in order to get interest @Rs. 1,000/- per month before the O.P No.2 and as such the complainant is consumer under the O.Ps as they are service providers.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the O.P No.2 closed the transaction of the said MIS A/c of the complainant without any reason.

            It is the further case of the complainant that she went to the O.P No.2 to know the reason for closing the transaction. They informed her that no family member of Surendu Das could operate their postal account as there was CBI enquiry was going on against her father, though there was no order of CBI or any other4 authority in this regard.

            It is the further case of the complainant that her father Surendu Das was an employee of Raniganj Head Post Office and due to some anomaly in account he was falsely charged for misappropriation of money. CBI lodged a case against him but subsequently he was discharged. But he was terminated in disciplinary inquiry and preferred an appeal against said order, which is still pending.

            It is the next case of the complainant that her father submitted several applications before the authority but in vain.

            Lastly he had filed C.F. case No. 53/11 before this Forum with prayer to pass an order directing the O.Ps to release payment of POSB(Post Office Saving Bank) and POSC (post office saving certificate) with other reliefs.

Ultimately, the said case was allowed by this Forum with certain direction to the O.Ps. The O.Ps preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission against the said order but the same was dismissed.

            It is the further case of the complainant that so in view of the order passed in C.F. Case No. 53/11 she is entitled to get maturity value of the said account with admissible interest.

            It is the further case of the complainant that O.P No.2 agreed to pay Rs. 2,27,931/- on 29.05.12 to her, less than the actual claim amount. that on that date the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 2,59,040/- and as such after adjusting the payment already made by O.P No.2 to the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 31,109/- as on 29.05.12 with further interest amounting 12%P.A. since 29.05.12 to till realization of the amount.

            It is the further case of the complainant that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the payment calculation dated 29.04.2014 and written application dated 11.11.14 addressing the O.P No.1 with request to pay the rest amount but they did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.

            Hence, this case for directing the O.Ps to pay Rs. 29,109/- with 12% interest per annum since 29.05.12 to till realization and for payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            The O.Ps Superintendent of Post Office, Suri have contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant, contending inter alia, that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

It is the specific case of the O.Ps that the complainant Nandita Das jointly opened MIS A/c at Md. Bazar S.O on 13.07.2004 as joint ‘B’ type with face value of Rs. 1,50,000/ thereafter interest monthly basis was paid upto 18.03.2006.

It is the further case of the O.Ps that the said A/c was closed on 29.05.2012 total payment of Rs. 2,27,931/-(Principal of Rs. 1,50,000/-, interest of Rs. 62,931/- and Bonus of Rs. 15,000/-) was made to the complainant through postal cheque. Said payment was made for post maturity interest.

It is the further case of the o.ps that C.F. case No. 53/11 is not related with present case and the complainant after getting everything has filed the present false case and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the case is liable to be dismissed.

Considering the complaint and other materials on record with think following points are to be decided in this case.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Nandita Das has filed examination in chief. She has been cross examined and discharged. She has also field some documents. 

O.PW1 Balaram Das, Officer of O.P No.1 has examined, cross examined and discharged. He has filed some documents.

Argument of the Ld. Advocate/Agent of both parties has been heard.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant opened MIS A/c No. 7045611 depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- before O.P No. 2.

So, the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: Total valuation of the case is Rs. 46,190/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

            The O.Ps have office within jurisdiction of the Forum.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

Admittedly the complainant has opened MIS A/c No. 7045611 by depositing Rs. 1,50,000/- in order

to get interest amounting to Rs. 1,000/- P.M. before the O.P No.2 Sub-Post Master Md. Bazar Post Office, Birbhum but the O.P No. 2 closed the transaction of the same.

It is the case of the complainant that she went to the O.P No.2 to know the reason for closing the transaction. They informed her that no family member of Surendu Das could operate their postal account as there was CBI enquiry was going on against her father, though there was no order of CBI or any other4 authority in this regard.

That her father Surendu Das was an employee of Raniganj Head Post Office and due to some anomaly in account he was falsely charged for misappropriation of money. CBI lodged a case against him but subsequently he was discharged. But he was terminated in disciplinary inquiry and preferred an appeal against said order, which is still pending and the father of the complainant submitted several applications before the authority but in vain.

It is the further case of the complainant that she was now entitled to get Rs. 2,59,040/- but the O.Ps have paid only Rs. 2,27,931/- and she is entitled to get balance Rs. 31,109/- along with further interest of 12% P.A. till realization.

It is the case of the O.Ps that complainant Nandita das opened an MIS A/c on 13.07.2004 having face value and monthly interest was paid to her upto 18.03.2006. The said account was closed on 29.05.2012 total payment of Rs. 2,27,931/-(Principal of Rs. 1,50,000/-, interest of Rs. 62,931/- and Bonus of Rs. 15,000/-) was made to the complainant through postal cheque. Said payment was made for post maturity interest.

We find that the O.Ps are quite silent on the point of withholding payment of maturity value of MIS A/c.

We further find that admittedly the complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- to the O.P No.2 in Monthly Interest Scheme and only payment of interest is disputed in this case.

We further find that by sending letter dt. 11.11.2014 with calculation sheet the complainant has claimed Rs. 31,109/- as balance interest with further interest.

The complainant has also filed said calculation sheet before this Forum.

During trial the O.Ps have not specifically denied the contents of said calculation sheet.

During hearing of argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the O.Ps submitted that the present case is hopelessly barred by limitation as last payment was made long before.

But we find that by filing one after another application the complainant has been contentiously claiming her dues but the O.Ps has not paid any heed.

So, the present case is not barred by limitation.

Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to hold the complainant has been able to prove her case and she is entitled to get Rs. 31,109/- with further interest of 8% p.a. from 29.05.12 to till realization.

Thus, both the points are decided in favour of the complainant. Case succeeds.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 8/2015 be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

            The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs. 31,109/- with further interest of 8% p.a. from 29.05.12 to till realization. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and deficiency in service. All payment be made to the complainant within 2(two) months from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.