1. This is a petition filed U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs. The petition is filed by one Shri Sanjay Kumar Todi hereinafter referred to as the petitioner/complainant) against Union of India, Department of Posts, India and 5 (five) Others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties).
- The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner- Shri Sanjay Kumar Todi being Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) consisting of his mother, his wife and children opened a P.P.F. (Public Provident Fund) being account No.211 in his name in Nagaon H.P.O.(Head Post Office) in the year 1993. The said P.P.F. account was continued in Nagaon Head Post Office till 31.03.1997, when the balance amount therein stood at Rs.93,206.00 and thereafter on request of the complainant, the said P.P.F. account was transferred to Surat, Gujarat vide Nagaon Head Post Office. A.T.No.47 dated 20.10.1998. Subsequently, the said A.T.No. along with SB-10(b), SB-3, Ledger copy etc. were said to have been returned by Surat H.O. to Nagaon H.O. vide No. APM/SIBO/DC III dated 13.11.1998 on the erroneous belief that it was a duplicate P.P.F. account as the complainant being Karta of H.U.F. was also maintaining an individual P.P.F. with Surat H.P.O. Thereafter, the said P.P.F. account along with the balance account had mysteriously become untraceable and numerous letters were written to different authorities of postal department by the petitioner but only received evasive, vague and misleading replies and the closing balance of his said P.P.F. along with accrued interest thereon has not been refunded to him till date. The complainant submits that opposite parties illegally withhold his heard earned money without any rhyme or reason and due to the fault of the opposite parties, he is being victimized running from pillar to post since last 20 years causing severe mental pain and agony and also depriving him to get his legitimate claim and such conduct on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence, this petition under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act before this Commission praying for relief.
- The opposite party No. 3 filed written version on his behalf and on behalf of opposite party No.2,4,5 and 6. By their said written version opposite party No.2 to 6 denied all the allegation levelled against them by the petitioner. They pleaded inter-alia that the case of petitioner is not maintainable and there is no cause of action for him to file the case, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant case and this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the case. The contesting opposite parties further stated that they are willing to sort out the wrong impression of the petitioner that post office department is sitting over his hard earned money and opposite party No.3 will volunteer to return the money, if deposited on submission of proof and at the same time they are not willing to give the petitioner any advantage which is in violation of statutory rules and regulation. Under such circumstances contesting opposite parties prays for dismissal of the complaint of complainant/petitioner.
- Upon claim of the parties the following points come out for discussion and decision.
i. Whether the opposite parties willfully neglected to return back the amount of the petitioner/complainant deposited in his P.P.F. account No.211 for which the petitioner/complainant has to suffer loss and whether such act on the part of opposite party amount to deficiency in service.?
ii. Whether the petitioner/complainant is entitled for any relief/reliefs.
- ​Petitioner/complainant filed affidavit affirming that all the contents whatever he stated in his claim petition shall also be treated and read as his evidence. The opposite parties on the other hand did not adduce any evidence of their own nor they cross examined the petitioner/complainant as P.W.
- Written argument for both side filed. Perused the same.
- Findings and reasons thereof:-
For the sake of brevity both the points are taken jointly for discussion and decision.
The claim of the petitioner/complainant is that he being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family started a P.P.F. account at Nagaon Head Post Office which was continued till 31.03.1997 and thereafter, on his request , the said P.P.F. account was transferred to Surat H.O. on 20.10.1998 and thereafter, the Surat H.O. returned back the same to Nagaon H.O. on 13.11.1998 and thereafter ,the said P.P.F. account became untraceable and the opposite parties did not take any step to return back his deposited amount till last 20 years. By filing affidavit the petitioner/complainant also stated that the contents of his claim petition is also his evidence in support of his claim. The opposite parties stated that they are willing to settle the matter and return any money, if deposited by petitioner/complainant upon satisfactory proof but at the same time they are not willing to give any advantage to the petitioner/complainant against existing rules and laws. Opposite parties neither cross examined the petitioner/complainant as P.W. nor adduced any evidence in support of their written version.It is further seen that the opposite parties by their written version did not dispute the facts that the petitioner/complainant started a P.P.F. account at Nagaon Head Post Office which was continued till 31.03.1997, , the said P.P.F. was transferred to Surat H.O. on 20.10.1998 on the request of the petitioner/complainant , the Surat H.O. returned back the same to Nagaon H.O. on 13.11.1998 and thereafter, the said P.P.F. account became untraceable and the opposite parties did not take any step to return the deposited amount of the petitioner/complainant till last 20 years. The opposite parties neither cross examined the P.W.1 nor adduced any evidence of their own. They simply stated in their written version that they are willing to settle the matter and return any money, if deposited by the petitioner/complainant upon satisfactory proof. Mere filing of written statement is not sufficient unless supported by evidence.In the instant case the opposite parties neither cross examined the petitioner /complainant as P.W.1 nor adduce any evidence in support of their written version for reasons best known to them. In view of above we are of the opinion that the complainant has successfully established that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
In result both the points for discussion and decision are answered in affirmative and goes in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R
8. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. Issue direction to the opposite parties to pay the complainant the accrued amount of his P.P.F. A/C No.211 of Nagaon H.P.O. with compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousands)only with interest @ 12% per annum from today till realization.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 30th Day of April 2021.
