Date of filing: 15.06.2017 Date of disposal: 15.11.2019
Complainant: Rampada Khan, S/o. Late Ashutosh, Kalinagar Para, PO. & PS: Kalna, District: Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713 409.
Opposite Parties: 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan Division, PIN – 713 101.
2. Kalna Post Office, represented by its Post Master, Kalna Post Office, PO. & PS: Kalna, District: Burdwan, PIN – 713 409.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Ms. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Deb Krishna Sinha & Srimanta Chandra.
Appeared for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2: Ld. Advocate, Murari Mohan Kumar.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 against the Ops alleging deficiency in service as the Ops did not make payment of legitimate matured MIS claimed amount.
The case of the complainant is that being an octogenarian person opened an MIS account vide pass book No. 8575256705 in the Kalna Post Office (OP-2) and whose maturity date was 03.11.2016 for an amount of Rs. 49,500=00. The complainant authorized his son to take delivery of the maturity amount on 08.11.2016 due to very poor physical condition as per rule and regulations of the Post Office in the prescribed format as SB-7A to act as messenger, but the OP No. 1 and Op No. 2 refused to receive the application for proceeding and insisted to appear the complainant physically before the counter to take the maturity amount. Thereafter, the complainant informed the whole matter to the OP-1 and as per instruction of OP-1 given through the letter dated 21.12.2016, the complainant again sent his only son on 04.01.2017 to OP-2 with the SB-7A form duly filled up and maintaining all the formalities as per norms for payment through messenger, but the OP No. 1 in collusion with OP No. 2 refused to accept the form and gave him threat that he will never get the matured amount since he has lodged complaint to the higher authority.
The complainant further submitted that the complainant wrote a letter to the OP No. 1 on 09.01.2017 and on 02.02.2017 regarding non-payment of maturity of MIS Pass Book No. 8575256705 and about the misbehavior of the OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 but no progress from their end. Getting no reply, the complainant wrote letter on 22.02.2017 to ‘The Chief Postmaster General’, Kolkata about the matter of negligence of Ops and after elapse of so many days he did not get his matured amount of MIS.
Thereafter, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan Division sent a letter on 23.02.2017 and made a new story stating that since his son was an authorized SAS agent attached to Kalna MDG, so as per rules an authorized agent cannot act as messenger in such case and asked to nominate any other person for this purpose. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan Division again sent a letter on 23.02.2017 and again brings a new story stating that one official of Kalna MDG on 09.03.2017 came to his residence and wanted to make MIS closure payment but the complainant could not make a fruitful result as refusal of non-acceptance of their proposal. Complainant stated that no such incident occurred.
Due to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, after elapse of so many days the complainant has been suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment and finding no other alternative to get relief has been compelled to file this complaint with a prayer for directing the Ops to deliver the matured amount of MIS of Rs. 49,500=00, to pay Rs. 40,000=00 as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 10,000=00 towards litigation cost.
This complaint is contested by the OP No. 1 by filing written version denying all the material allegations made by the complainant in his petition of complaint.
The case of the OP No. 1 is that the OP first received a complaint on 09.11.2016 being complaint No. D Post/E/2016/15594 alleging non-payment of maturity amount being MIS account No. 8575256705 in the name of Shri Rampada Khan. Accordingly the department by their letter dated 21.12.2016 replied stating that the said that the said MIS holder have not submitted a withdrawal form in SB-7A format for withdrawal of the money through any messenger and requested to file duly signed form. But the complainant did not personally present in the Post Office nor submitted the SB-7A form appointing any person to act as messenger. The complainant on 09.01.2017 sent another complaint registered as D.P.G./P/2-017/00039 dated 16.01.2017 stating that he has duly filled up the form SB-7A authorizing his son Debabrata Khan to act a messenger and sent him to MDG on 04.01.2017 to take the maturity amount but the Post Office was unable to make payment as it transpired that said Debabrata Khan is an authorized SAS agent attached to Kalna MDG and is not eligible to act as messenger to withdraw the matured amount.
The OP No. 1 further submitted that due reply was sent on 23.02.2017 by the postal authority stating the ineligibility of Debabrata Khan to act as messenger, as he acts as SAS agent of Kalna MDG as per rule quoted in the Directorate letter being No. 110-13/2004-SB, dated 01.06.2007 (SB Order No. 6/2007) and in such cases requested the complainant to nominate any other person for the said purpose.
Thereafter the complainant in the self-same matter gave a letter to the Department on 06.03.2017 which the OP forwarded to the departmental higher authority on 20.04.2017. In this situation this OP were bound to follow the departmental rules and regulations and any violation of the rule would entail departmental action. The postal authority through their own messenger from the Kalna MDG office arranged to make payment to the complainant at his residential address but the complainant refused to accept and bent upon to his claim that payment should be made through the messenger his son Shri Debabrata Khan. There is no question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or negligence on the part of the Ops causing complainant’s mental agony, pain or harassment making him entitled to compensation. The Ops were all along ready to pay the maturity amount after compliance of the postal rules. The complainant suppressed all those material facts deliberately and for unlawful gain rush to this Forum on distorted facts only to harass Postal Department. The instant complaint has no merit and is fit to re reject with adequate cost.
Decision with reasons:-
To prove his case the complainant has filed his evidence-on-affidavit and also filed documents, letters of correspondence etc. In his evidence as per statement of his complaint the OP put questionnaires to the complainant and complainant gave his reply. OP also filed his evidence-on-affidavit and complainant thereafter filed his questionnaires to the OP and OP also filed answer to such questionnaire. Thereafter both sides tabled their elaborate argument in this case.
After going through the evidence on record and the documents filed by the parties, we find that it is admitted that the complainant placed his legitimate claim of his matured money of his MIS and the money was matured on 03.11.2016 and the matured value being Rs. 49,500=00. In the written version filed by the Ops it is stated that to receive the matured amount he authorized his son Debabrata Khan to take the cheque of matured value on 08.11.2016, but denied that OP refused to receive the application. OP admitted that OP received complaint for non-payment of matured amount from the side of the complainant on 09.11.2016 but the Department of OP replied by letter dated 21.12.2016 asking the complainant to submit a withdrawal form in SB-7A for withdrawal of the money through any messenger. From the evidence on record it is clear that complainant duly filled up SB-7A authorizing his son Debabrata Khan to act as his messenger and sent the son on 04.01.2017 to take the matured amount. But Debabrata Khan being ineligible to act as messenger to withdraw money as per postal rules he was not handed over matured amount. The postal authority was unable to disburse the amount on 23.02.2017 stating the ineligibility of Debabrata Khan to act as a messenger as he is acting as SAS Agent of Kalna MDG as per rules quoted in the Directorate letter being No. 110-13/2004-SB, dated 22.12.2006 wherein it is clearly stated that “Any other function such as acting as a messenger or witness for any type of withdrawal under any small saving scheme in the capacity of authorized agent is not covered under the agency rules”.
OP in his written version stated that OP as postal authority through their own messenger from the Kalna MDG office arranged to make payment to the complainant at his residential address but the complainant refused to accept and bent upon to his claim that payment should be made through the messenger Shri Debabrata Khan, his son.
OP also put questionnaire to the complainant in this effect which complainant denied, but there is no evidence to prove this fact whether the OP arranged for making payment to the complainant at his residence by authorizing any person from their end. Nobody came to depose in this regard and no documents filed. Therefore, such a claim of OP is not tenable to this Forum. However, it is a fact that as per the rule of the postal authority, the copy is filed as SB Order No. 29/2006 dated 22.12.2006 that ‘acting as a messenger or witness for any type of withdrawal under any small saving scheme in the capacity of authorized agent is not covered under any agency rules’. Therefore, OP served letter dated 23.02.2017 stating this fact.
After hearing argument from both sides and perusal of the documents filed by the parties it appears that the complainant is entitled to receive the matured amount on 03.11.2016 but he did not receive the same for such complications though he filled up due SB-7A authorizing his son Debabrata Khan to receive the matured amount as messenger. If his son was not an agent in the Kalna MDG then as a son of the complainant the OP was bound to deliver the matured amount to the son after receiving the said prescribed Form SB-7A. OP did not take any other initiative and there is no evidence to show in this regard that they on their own nominated any person to make payment to the complainant in his residence. Therefore, complainant suffers financial loss, as well as, mental pain for not receiving the said matured amount in due time.
Going by the foregoing discussions, hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the present Consumer Complaint being No. 96/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest. OP is directed to make payment to the complainant of the said matured amount of Rs. 49,500=00 (Rs. Forty nine thousand and five hundred) only either by transferring the amount to any SB account of the complainant, if any, in that Post Office, or by issuing a cheque in the name of the complainant along with interest @8% (eight per cent) per annum from the date of maturity of MIS, i.e., 03.11.2016 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the said amount (matured amount + 8% interest) will carry penal interest @12% (twelve per cent) per annum for the default period.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me:
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
President
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
DCDRF, Purba Bardhaman
