DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _98_ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING : 28.7.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30.5.2018
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Mrs. Swati Bose, D2, Kanan Apartment, Garia Station Road, Amtola, Fartabad, Kol-84.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Post Master, Garia Garden Post Office, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata – 84.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, South Presidency Division, Baruipur, Kolkata -700 144.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Non-payment of maturity value of two MIS Certificates on the date of maturity by the Postal Department i.e O.P nos. 1 and 2 has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 , alleging deficiency in service on their part.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant purchased two MIS ( Monthly Interest Scheme) Certificates i.e (1) MIS no.3286005 on investment of Rs.3.99 lakh with date of issue (DOI) on 20.3.2010 and date of maturity (DOM) on 20.3.2016 and (2) MIS no. 3286027 on Rs.2.01 lakh with DOI on 27.3.2010 and DOM on 27.3.2016 . The maturity value of the said Certificates was Rs.4,18,950/- for MIS mentioned in Serial no.1 above and Rs.2,11,050/- for MIS mentioned in Serial no.2 as above. The maturity values were not released in time on completion of maturity period of the accounts. The cheques for maturity value were handed over to the complainant on 7.4.2016 about 11 days after maturity of MIS in Serial no.2 and 20 days after maturity of MIS in Serial no.1. In the meantime, Government of India slashed the rate of interest from 9.2% to 8.6% with effect from 1.4.2016. The complainant has invested the money in Senior Citizen Savings Scheme (SCSS) at S.B.I, Garia Branch on 18.4.2016 at the rate of interest 8.6% p.a. As per the version of the complainant, she has sustained a loss of .6% per lac per year due to delay caused in payment of maturity value to her by the O.P Department and ,therefore, she has claimed compensation of Rs.21,600/- for loss sustained by her by way of interest and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.
The O.Ps have been resisting the complaint by filing written version ,wherein it is contended by them that complainant did not produce her MIS Passbook and Identity Proof to enable the Department to take necessary step for payment of maturity value of MIS Certificate on the date of maturity. She was asked to open a savings bank account in the same post office to expedite the encashment of those certificates on the date of maturity by way of direct transfer of maturity value to that account. But the complainant did not open the said account, nor did she give any intimation to O.P-1 to that effect. She was also asked that she was at liberty to reinvest the maturity value of the certificates for a further period of one year, so that she would not lose any amount towards the rate of interest enjoyed by her in MIS account. Dates of maturity were on 20.3.2016 and 27.3.2016. The complainant intimated the fact of such maturity and also expressed her intention not to open the savings bank account in the concerned post office only on 22.3.2016 and 26.3.2016. No MIS Passbook was deposited by her that day. It is further submitted by O.P nos. 1 and 2 that the Sub Post office i.e O.P-1 cannot issue any cheque for any amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- without prior approval of its higher authority i.e O.P-2. The cheques were issued by O.P-2 in accordance with the rules of Post Office Savings Bank Manual ((POSB) Vol-1 on 7.4.2016. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant and complaint should ,therefore, be dismissed in limini.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service for not issuing cheque for maturity value of MIS Certificates in time?
- Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidences are led on affidavit by both the parties. BNAs filed by the parties are kept in the record. Already heard the arguments of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 and 2:-
In the instant case, the maturity value of two MIS Certificates has been paid to the complainant by the O.Ps through cheques dated 7.4.2016. The dates of maturity of those certificates were on 20.6.2016 and 27.3.2016. It is undisputed fact that the maturity value of those Certificates has not been paid to the complainant on the dates of maturity. It is also undisputed fact that those cheques have been issued to the complainant 11 days and 20 days after the dates of maturity of those two certificates.
In the circumstances, it is to be seen whether there has been any kind of deficiency caused on the part of the O.Ps while issuing cheques for maturity value of the Certificates after lapse of 11 days or 20 days, as the case may be .
It is the case of the O.Ps that the complainant intimated them about the fact of maturity of her certificates only on 22.3.2016 and 26.3.2016. It is also their version that the complainant expressed her intention on those dates not to open any savings bank account in the concerned post office of the O.Ps to get the maturity value of her certificates. All these are stated by the O.Ps in paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by them. This averment of the O.Ps has not been denied by the complainant in her evidence. In these circumstances, we feel no difficulty to say that the complainant actually intimated the O.P Department on 22.3.2016 and 26.3.2016 about the fact of maturity of her certificates and also about her intention not to open any savings bank account in the said post office. The payment of maturity value of Certificate can be made by the post office in two ways; (1) by cheque and (2) by credit to savings account of the complainant, if already opened or newly opened at the same post office. This is provided in Rule 168 (11) of POSB Manual Vol-1. Rule 162 (b) of the said manual lays down that the Sub Post office will have to obtain a cheque from Head Post Office. Rule 169 thereof lays down that Post maturity interest cannot be allowed for any part of the period which is less than one month.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is found established that the complainant is not willing to open a savings bank account in the post office of O.P-1 for taking prompt payment of the maturity value of her certificates. So, the only way open herein for payment such certificates is to issue cheque by O.P-1. But the Rules provide that O.P-1 being the Sub Post Office cannot issue any cheques in favour of the complainant especially when cheque amount exceeds Rs.20,000/-. The cheques can be issued in such a case by the Head Post Office i.e O.P-2. In the instant case, the delay of 11 days and 20 days have been made to make payment of maturity value of certificates by cheques, as goes the allegation of the complainant. As per the Rules , the O.P-1 is required to send indent of cheques to O.P-2. He has sent cheque indents to O.P-2 on 22.3.2016 and 26.3.2016. O.P-2 received the indents on 28.3.2016 and 29.3.2016 and thereafter issued cheques on 7.4.2016 i.e 9 days after receipt of cheque indents. Issue of cheques involves payment of a huge sum of money and, therefore, the Issuing Officerwill have to exercise utmost care and caution while proceeding to issue such cheque. Such cheques cannot be expected to be issued in hot haste. All account papers need to be scrutinized by the Head Post Office i.e O.P-2 while issuing the cheques. That apart, the complainant is not the sole investor of moneyin the post office. There are so many investors who are claiming withdrawal of money from the coffer of Post Office. We can easily imagine the avalanche of work load the Post Office i.e O.P-2 is to face day by day . Regards being had to these circumstances, which are evident on record, we do say that the O.Ps have not committed any inordinate delay by issuing the cheques in favour of the complainant within 11 days /20 days , as the case may be, of the date of maturity of the certificates of the complainant.
It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the O.Ps are deficient in rendering services to the complainant, as they have not been able to make payment of maturity value of her certificates on the date of maturity. But, the complainant is required to give an intimation to the O.Ps to the effect that her certificates are to be matured on a particular date and that she has intended to withdraw the said value by cheques. Such intimation should be given to the O.Ps sufficiently ahead of the dates of maturity of the certificates and unless it is given to the O.Ps well in advance of the dates of maturity, it is not possible for the O.Ps to arrange for payment of maturity value in time. But what did the complainant do? Whether she gave such intimation to the O.Ps in time. She gave such intimation to the O.Ps only on 22.3.2016 and 26.3.2016 , whereas the dates of maturity were on 20.3.2016 and 27.3.2016. This intimation is found to be given to the O.Ps by the complainant at a belated stage and here lies deficiency on the part of the complainant. He who seeks equity must do equity. Here, the complainant herself is guilty of laches and the O.Ps cannot be held liable for any kind of laches as alleged by the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that she has sustained a financial loss as the maturity value of her certificates has not been given to her by the O.Ps on the date of maturity, which falls in the month of March, 2016. According to her, the Government of India slashed the interest rate from 9.2 % to 8.6 % with effect from 1.4.2016 and, therefore, she lost .6% interest p.a upon the maturity value of her certificate. Had the maturity value of the certificates been given to her in the month of March, 2016i.e on the dates of maturity, she would have been able to invest the same in the same scheme before the bank @9.2% p.a. She has invested the amount in SBI, Garia Branch with interest @8.6% p.a and thereby she is likely to sustain a loss for Rs.21,600/- @ Rs.600/- /lac/year(Rs.3600x6).
Let us see now, whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation for such kind of loss. Complainant cannot get compensation for such loss; section 73 of Contract Act stands in the way. Section 73, Contract Act provides that only direct loss can be awarded to the person aggrieved; it does not award any kind of loss which is too remote and is indirect. In the instant case, it is the version of the complainant that she is about to loseRs.21,600/- by way of loss which will be sustained by her in coming 6 years of her investment before the bank owing to slashing of interest by Government of India. Such loss is too remote and the complainant is, therefore, not entitled to such loss which she alleges to be sustaining in future owing to slashing of interest by Government of India.
In these facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the case filed by the complainant and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without cost.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
