DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _18_ OF ___2016_
DATE OF FILING : 23.2.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:23.10.2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Biswanath Kayal, son of late Nagendra Nath Kayal
- Smt. Ila Kayal, wife of Biswanath Kayal, both of Halderpara, Vill. & P.O Champahati, P.S Baruipur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin - 743330
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Dipak Majumder, son of Arun Majumder, of Nabapally, Sholgohlia, P.O. Champahati, P.S Baruipur, Dist. S-24PGs, Pin-743330
2. The Superintendent of Post Office, South Presidency Division-Baruipur.
3. The Chief Post Master General, Yogagog Bhaban, Central Avenue, Kolkata – 12.
4. Post Master, Champahati Post Office, Champahati, P.S Baruipur,
Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743330
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
The short case of the complainant is that complainant deposited Rs.10,000/-in Kisan Bikash Patra which after maturity becomes to Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant renewed the same which matured to Rs.40,000/-. Again the petitioners renewed the same and it becomes to Rs.80,000/- on 3.3.2013. The O.Ps assured for payment but payment was not made. Hence, this case for payment of Rs.80,000/- , cost of harassment Rs.1 lac and litigation cost Rs.2 lacs.
The O.P-1 contested the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegations. It is the contention of the O.P-1 that complainant has already received the matured value of the Kisan Bikas Patra and further stated that he never handed over any Certificate of KBP of Rs.80,000/- to the complainants and claimed that if he has handed over the said certificate on 3.3.2013 how the complainants deposited Rs.40,000/- in NSC for five years. So, it is strongly denied the allegations and submitted that it is the false allegations against the O.Ps for wrongful gain. Accordingly O.P-1 prays for dismissal of the case.
The O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 jointly contested the case by filing written version and also denied the case of the complainants. They have categorically stated that complainant has received matured amount of Rs.40,134/- by cheque no.940955 dated 10.1.2014 drawn on State Bank of India, Baruipur Branch in the name of the applicant Biswanath Kayal and the cheque was cleared. The O.Ps also claimed that on 17.8.2005 the complainant also further deposited Rs.20,000/-in KBP through O.P-1 being Certificate no.51/2 KVP/48 CD 523625 to 523626 (Rs.10000 x 2 ) Registration no. 15773 dated 17.8.2005 and also got matured on 12.6.2014 Rs.40,000/- out of the said matured amount was reinvested for five years in NSC at Champahati S.O vide Certificate No.5 NS/35EF no. 288257 to 288260 being Rs.10,00/- x 4 under Registration no. 5314 dated 12.6.2014 and balance amount of Rs.266/- was paid in cash to Biswanath Kayal being the applicant herein. So, this is a false case and complainant have been put to strict proof thereof and pray for dismissal of the case.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
From the documentary evidence it is proved that complainant has received Rs.40,134/- and to that effect State Bank of india , Baruipur Branch has given a Certificate dated 31.3.2016 which is lying in the case record filed by the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4.
It is interesting to point out that complainant and one Ila Kayal received Rs.266/- which has been claimed by the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 and apart from that complainant and Ila Kayal made an application for purchase of NSC o n 12.6.2014 amounting to Rs.40,000/-. Thus question of refund of Rs.80,000/- does not arise as because they have already invested the same by purchasing NSC on 12.6.2014 and today is 23.10.2017 . So, the same has not matured as yet… Thus, the documentary evidence clearly snatched away the claim of the complainants ‘case. On the contrary complainant has failed to prove the case even by swearing evidence. They have categorically bye-passed the answer which was thrown to him by way of questionnaire by the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 whether he has received the value of deposited amount in question no.10. But complainants replied Irrelevant”. That answer clearly suggests after perusing the documentary evidence i.e the cheque issued by the postal department as well as Bank Certificate that complainants have cleverly denied the same by answering irrelevant”. But we restrain ourselves in passing or taking into consideration that the complainants are common people for which we do not deal the complainant under section 26 of the C.P Act, 1986.
Hence,
Ordered
The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest ,since complainant has been failed to prove his case, without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest ,since complainant has been failed to prove his case, without any cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
