Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 23 day of June, 2004
C.D.No.77/2002
G. Venkata Konda Reddy,
S/o. Konda Reddy,
R/o. R.Krishnapuram (V),
Allagadda (M), Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri Katam. Srinivasa Reddy
-Vs-
1. Post Master, Head Post office,
Allagadda.
2. Superintendent Post Officers,
Nandyal,Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.1 &2 represented
By their counsel Sri M.D.V.J.Sarma
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under sec. 11&12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay RS.60,000/- being the maturity value of the K.V.P.S with 24% interest, RS.25,000/- towards mental agony, RS.5,000/- towards costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant purchased three Kisanvikes Parta’s bearing No.s 11 CC 784881, 11 CC 784882 and 11 CC 784883 worth of RS.10,000/- each dt 29.6.1988 from the opposite party No.1. The maturity value of each certificate is RS.20,000/- i.e double the value of the purchase and the maturity date is 29.6.1993. The said original certificates were misplaced by the complainant in the year 1990 while white washing his house and could not trace them. Later the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and applied for duplicate certificates. The opposite party No.1 issued an application for issual of duplicate K.V.P.S by collecting nominal fee of RS.3/- on 14.10.2000 and also requested the complainant to comply with certain formalities like submitting application for duplicate K.V.P.S to produce indemnity bonds and surety for issual of duplicate bond. Even after completion of all formalities the complainant was made to visit the opposite party No.1’s office several times, and the opposite party No.1 postponing the issual of duplicate K.V.P.S on some pretext or other. It lastly submits that on 12.2.2001 the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant stating that the complainant’s application for duplicate K.V.P.S has been returned and request the complainant to collect it from the office opposite party No.1 and there by committed deficiency of service in not issuing duplicate KVP’S to the complainant, driving him to the Forum for redrssal of his grievances.
3. In substantiation of its case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) copy of original form of application for purchase of Kisan Vikan Patra of complainant issued on 29.6.1993 (2) application dt 13.10.2000 for the issual of duplicate K.V.P’S of complainant (3) fee receipt dt 14.10.2000 for RS.3/- issued to obtain duplicate K.V.P’S (4) letter dt nil addressed to the complainant by opposite party No.2 (5) letter dt 8.2.2001 addressed by opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 (6) letter dt 12.2.2001 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant and (7) indemnity bond dt 13.10.2000 executed by complainant to postal authorities for obtaining duplicate K.V.P’S besides to his sworn-affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments. The supra documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.7 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the receipt of notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party 1&2 made its appearance through its standing counsel and filed their written version denying the complaint averments besides to questioning the maintainability of the complainants case either in Law or on facts.
5. It submits that the allegation of the complainant that he purchase Kisanvikas Patra under certificate No.s 784881 to 784883 worth of RS.10,000/- each on 29.6.1988, but as per records available with the opposite party the said KVP’S are purchased by the complainant on 29.6.1993 hence it cannot be believed that he lost the said certificate in the year 1990.
6. In further submits that the complainant first approached the opposite party No.1 in the month of October, 2000 and applied for issual of duplicate Kisan Vikas Patras, the said application was not accompanied by necessary particulars and documentary proofs, hence his application was returned twice for rectifying the short comings and to represent the application, so as to enable the opposite party to issue the duplicate K.V.P’s but the complainant did not rectify the short comings and the complainants application is itself defective and with incorrect particulars, hence the opposite party are helpless in issuing duplicate K.V.P’s. As there are laches on part of the complainant, the issual of duplicate K.V.P’s and payment of maturity value of Kisan Vikas Patra’s was delayed and the complainant is not remaining entitled to seek the same. There is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and the complainant is not remaining entitled to seek any relief claimed in the complaint.
7. The opposite party filed its sworn affidavit in support of its written version as evidence and no documents are filed by the complainant.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite party.
9. The Ex A.1 is the copy of original form of application for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra’s issued by opposite party No.1, with serial No.4466 dt 29.06.1993, referring the complainant payment in cash RS.30,000/- for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra’s in the name of the complainant. The said application was further completed by opposite party No.1 issuing Nos to the said certificates as 11CC 784881, 11CC784882, 11CC784883 respectively dt 29.06.1993, for RS.10,000/- each and it was signed by opposite party No.1 as true copy on 13.10.2000. The opposite parties in their written version averments in para No.2 admits that the complainant purchased three Kisan Vikas Partas under certificate Nos 784881 to 784883 each for a value of RS.10,000/- on 29.6.1993. But as against to it the complainant in his complaint averments in para No.3 alleges that he purchased the said certificates on29.6.1988. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the Ex A.1, the date mentioned as 29.6.1993 for issual of application and the said certificates. Subsequent to the completion of Ex A.1 i.e copy of original application, the said statement by the complainant on this aspects not only remains highly in consistence, but also there by un trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides in that regard. Therefore what follows is that the said certificates are issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant bearing certificate Nos. 784881 to 784883 on 29.6.1993 but not on 29.6.1988 as alleged by the complainant.
10. The Ex A.2 is the duplicate application for the issual of Duplicate Saving Certificates in lieu of loss or theft or destruction. The Ex A.2 is addressed to opposite party No.1 it envisages the particulars of certificates as Kisan Vikas Patras under certificate Nos 11CC784881 to 11CC784883 dt 29.06.1988 each of RS.10,000/- issued by opposite party No.1. On page No.2 of the said Ex A.2 the opposite party No.1 certifies that Rs 3/- is collected for issual of duplicate certificates and the certificate holder was identified by one K.R.M. Malik and the said Ex A.2 is signed by the complainant on 13.10.2000. The complainant did not place any material in support of particulars mentioned in Ex A.2, hence there appears no bonafidies on part of the complainant for his allegation. The Ex A.3 is the receipt dt 14.10.2000 for payment of RS.3/- by the complainant to the opposite party for issual of duplicate KVP’s No.11CC 784881 to 11CC784883 of RS.10,000/- each. The facts borne in the above exhibits is admitted by the opposite parties side. Hence, it remaining clear that the complainant purchased Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos 11CC784881 to 11CC784883 on 29.06.1993.
11. Hence from the above there appears high in consistence as to the allegation of the complainant regarding purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra’s on 29.06.1988, there is no material placed by the complainant to substantiate that he purchased the said K.V.P’s on 29.06.1988. Further from the contends of Ex A.1 i.e application for purchase of Kisan Vikas Partas bears its dated as 29.06.1993, so what remaining is that complainant purchased the said Kisan Vikas Parta’s on 29.06.1993. The opposite party admitting the fact in their written version that the complainant purchased KVP’S on 29.06.1993, inspite of application dt 13.10.2000 for issual of duplicate KVPS and the collecting RS.3/- towards issual of duplicate KVPS, the opposite party taking lame excuses did not issue duplicate KVP’s to the complainant, with the particulars as per records available with them. Hence there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party side towards the complainant for non issual of duplicate KVP’S right from the date the complainant’s application for issual of duplicate KVPS.
12. The opposite party side except alleging defective and non-cooperative conduct of the complainant in submitting necessary particulars and documentary proofs did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting collaborative material.
13. Hence in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service by the opposite parties in not issuing duplicate KVPS to the complainant. The complainant is remaining entitled to compensation for suffering and mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and the deficiency of service of the opposite parties towards the complainant, and the damages suffered at the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the loss suffered by the complainant is indemnifiable.
14. Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to issue three duplicate Kisan Vikas Patra’s, to the complainant, as the opposite parties by their deficient conduct in not providing duplicate Kisan Vikas Patra’s to the complainant inspite of his application dt 13.10.2000, an amount of RS.3, 000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant from the opposite parties for suffered mental agony and RS.1, 000/- as costs of this case within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 23rd day of June, 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
