J U D G E M E N T

The appeal case in nutshell is that the appellant Aparna Dey Sarkar is a bona fide agent of postal department who used to work on commission basis at the sub post office, Manabari (OP/Respondent No. 4). The appellant in respect of her claim of commission received a cheque bearing no. 276185 dated 29/08/2012 to the tune of Rs.10,964 issued by respondent no. 2 drawn on State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Branch which was deposited for encashment before the respondent no. 4 on 04/10/2012. The cheque could not be encashed within a reasonable time which was ultimately lost in transit and the respondent no. 3 lodged an F.I.R in this respect and respondent no. 1 collected incumbent certificate for non-encashment of the cheque issued by State Bank of India, Jalpaiguri Branch which was communicated to the appellant by a letter dated 30/12/2013 by the respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the appellant visited here and there to trace out the lost cheque and to realise the cheque amount requesting the respondent no. 1 to 4 in several occasions by personal visits and by letters. Thereafter, by a letter dated 27/02/2014 the respondent no. 2 has asked the appellant to appear before his office on 06/03/2014. But she was not handed over any cheque on that day and she was harassed on different dates since then for collecting the fresh cheque from respondent no. 2. Ultimately, on 14/12/2016 the respondent no. 2 has refused or denied to issue any fresh cheque in favour of the appellant. Thereafter, on 19/03/2018 the appellant then sent a lawyer’s letter to opposite parties on 19/03/2018 with a request to pay her Rs. 10,964. The respondent no. 1 in reply to the letter of appellant dated 19/03/2018 issued the counter letter dated 23/03/2018 by stating the fact that the respondent no. 2 was the authority to issue the duplicate cheque against the lost cheque. Thereafter the appellant filed the consumer complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri on 31/05/2018. The Ld. Forum took up the matter for admission on 06/06/2018 and on hearing the appellant/complainant came to the conclusion that on 30/12/2013 the respondent no.1 informed in writing to the appellant dated 30/12/2013 about the loss of the cheque in transit and since then the cause of action was started. The Ld. Forum further concluded that as the complainant/appellant did not come before the forum for redressal her grievances within 2 years from the date of cause of action that is 30/12/2013 and as such the consumer complaint of the appellant could not be entertained by the Ld. Forum as the case was barred by limitation as held by the Ld. Forum. As a result, the case could not be admitted and it was dismissed on admission stage. Being aggrieved with the said judgement and order this appeal follows by the appellant on the ground the Ld. Forum has misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case and without going to the merit of the case hapazardly decided that the case was barred by limitation whereas the consumer complaint was filed within 2 years from the date of reply letter of respondent no. 3 dated 23/03/2018. The appellant prays for setting aside the impugned order and judgement of the Ld. Forum so that she may pursue her claim application as per provision of CP Act, 1986.

 The respondent no. 1,3 and 4 has jointly contested the case by appointing Mr. Dipankar Sen, Standing Counsel of Govt. of India. The respondent no. 2 has contested the case through Deputy Director (Finance Divisions), Small savings, Jalpaiguri. The appeal is being heard today in presence and the Ld. Advocate of the appellant as well as the respondent no. 1,3 and 4 are being heard through Ld. Advocate Dipankar Sen and respondent no. 2 is being heard through authorised representative Tripti Burman who is attached with the office of respondent no. 2 as savings development officer.

                At the time of hearing Ld. Standing Counsel of respondent no. 1,3 and 4 verbally mentioned alongwith his written objection that the respondent no. 2 by a letter dated 27/02/2014 asked the appellant to collect the duplicate cheque on 06/03/2014 as respondent no. 2 is the authority to issue a fresh cheque against the lost cheque and postal authority had no liability on this score. He further mentions that the claim of the appellant has only the civil remedy to go to civil court having competent jurisdiction to collect the cheque amount obtaining a decree.

                 After going through the entire documents submitted by both parties and on hearing all Ld. Standing Counsels of both sides it appears to this commission that the complainant/appellant through her self-employment as postal agent has accrued a commission to the tune of Rs. 10,964. Due to loss of cheque at the transit period during encashment process. She ran here and there to realise her reasonable claim but has become frustrated. On 27/02/2014 she was asked to collect the duplicate cheque on 06/03/2014 she again rushed to the office of respondent no. 2. But her frustration remained the same. Thereafter, she sent a lawyer’s letter to all the respondents on 19/03/2018 which was replied by respondent no. 1. And in response to the legal notice the respondent no. 1 asked the appellant to make an approach before respondent no. 2 for a duplicate cheque. The complainant/appellant stands on the argument that cause of action of this case starts not from 30/12/2013 but from 23/03/2018 when she was informed by respondent no. 1 to collect the duplicate cheque from the office of respondent no. 2. Rather, this reply on the part of respondent no. 1 has ratified the law of limitation if any in this case and it is nothing but a waiver and acquiescence on the part of the respondent 1. Moreover, the provision of Consumer Protection Act should not be implemented very rigidly as it is a benevolent legislation for the consumers and service receivers with its extended and additional jurisdiction also as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. The Ld. Forum ought to have the duty to consider the case of the complainant applying the proper judicial mind in appreciation of the spirit of the legislators on a remedial mind set up. The complainant/appellant by this time has suffered a lot and she should not be deprived from getting her legitimate claim from the authority concern for the services she has rendered.

                Considering all aspects, the commission thinks it proper to interfere with the order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri dated 06/06/2018 in respect of CC No. 24 of 2018.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D:-

That the appeal case no. A/2/2018 is hereby allowed on contest without imposing any cost. The order passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri dated 06/06/2018 in reference to CC No. 24 of 2018 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri is hereby set aside. The said CC case no. 24 of 2018 is hereby admitted on merit by this order of this commission. The case is sent back to the Ld. Forum, Jalpaiguri to hear the consumer complaint no. 24 of 2018 again in presence of all sides and adjudicate the matter as per provisions of CP Act, 1986 on merit. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties of this case. The parties of this case are asked to appear before Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri on 09/10/2018. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri through e-mail and through post.