BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th November 2016
PRESENT
SMT. C.V. SHOBHA : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HONBLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.72/2015
(Admitted on 21.02.2015)
Sri. Subramanya,
S/O B.Sham Joshi,
Hindu, Aged about 54 years,
Residing at Arnady House,
Peruvaje Village,
Bellare, Sullia Taluk.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by. DIB)
VERSUS
- The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Puttur (DK) Division,
Puttur 201
- The Post Master,
Puttur Main Post Office,
Puttur.
…. Opposite Parties
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and 2: UA)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the opposite party claiming certain reliefs.
- The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is having a PPF Account in the Opposite Parties office and it’s A/C Number is that of 50159. The said PPF Account completed 15 years on 12.03.2011. The complainant on 10.09.2011 filed an application for continuation of the said account. Apart from that, for the purpose of continuation of the said account, the complainant on 25.03.2012 had issued a cheque for Rs. 13,000/ infavour of the Opposite Party, drawn on SB Account maintained by the complainant at Bellare Post Office.
The cheque referred above issued by the complainant was realize by the Opposite Party on 30.03.2012. Inspite of realization of the said amount, the Opposite Party has willfully and intentionally had not credited the same to the complainant PPF Account referred above. It is pertinent to note that, the complainant has paid the said amount of Rs. 13,000/ to the Opposite Party and same was realized by it within the stipulated time and was credited to the PPF Account of the complainant.
That, immediately on 16.11.2013, the complainant issued a letter intimating these facts to the Opposite Party, which was not only received by them but also issued a false and frivolous reply. Thereafter again on 09.12.2013 the complainant issued another letter to the Opposite Party, for which they have neither replied nor intimated any action. Therefore, the complainant ultimately issued a lawyer s registered notice to the Opposite Party dated 24.03.2014, which was not only received by them but also replied as per reply notice dated 28.03.2014. However, as per the said reply notice, so far the concerned authority have not at all taken any action in the matter. The complainant was operating the PPF Account and other business with the Opposite Party for several years. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party is not only dereliction of duty but also deficiency of service rendered to the complaint, hence the above complainant filed under section 12 of the C.P Act 1986 (here in after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to give direction to the opposite parties to continue the PPF Account No.50159 of the complainant by receiving Rs. 13,000/ paid by him and also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as compensation for the mental agony Stress and untold sufferings undergone by the complainant and also cost of the proceedings.
III. Version Notice served to the opposite party by RPAD, Opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed version stating that the cheque submitted by the complainant pertains to Bellare Post Office. The debit to the account at Bellare Sub Post Office was made on 30.03.2012. The cheque was sent for realization to Bellare Sub Post office and realization intimation received at Puttur Head Post on 02.04.2012. As per the Rule 157(1) of Post office savings bank manual volume I, the request for the continuation of the account shall be made within one year from the end of the year of the date of maturity of the account. In the case of the complainant end of one year period lapsed on 31.03.2012. The complainant did not submit application in Form H for continuation of the account but he tendered cheque dated 25.03.2012 for crediting to his PPF Account. Which is after the prescribed period. Though the cheque was presented towards deposit, deposit made without option in form H is treated as irregular deposit. Hence, the amount was not credited to the PPF account of the complainant. Hence, the allegation of purposeful, deliberate act and dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposite Parties is denied.
The Opposite Party denies the complaint and submits that, the replies given by the Opposite Party in response to the letter of the complainant dated 16.11.2013 are the true and correct facts. That, as the said fact was informed to the complainant wide reply dated 21.11.2013. The Opposite Parties submits that, the operation of the PPF accounts are computerized and it is functioning based on the software which was developed based on the rules framed by the government. Human intervention in operation of account against the codified rules is not possible while working in computerized environment. The onus of filing portion Form H and making deposit within the time limit lies on the complainant. In instant case he failed to comply with the ruling requirement. The complainant is trying to shift his failure in complying with the required rule on the Opposite Parties. Hence, there is no deficiency of service rendered to the complainant. The copy of the Form H is not a valid document, since the same is created by the complainant to suit his false claim. The complainant had submitted the Form H, to the Post Office in time, the following should have been available in the Form H (a) the date stamp of the post office (b) the signature of the recipient (c) entry in pass book regarding the acceptance of Form H. Hence, the document annexed to the complaint is not the true copy of the Form H submitted to the Opposite Party but the same is concocted by the complainant with the aforesaid required entries.
- In support of the complainant One Sri. Subramanya, (CW1) complainant No.1 filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced the document got marked as Ex C1 to C8. On behalf of the opposite parties not lead any evidence hence treated nil.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite
- If so, for what relief and from whom the complainant entitled?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:.
Point No. (i) to (ii): As per Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV.POINTS No. (i) to (iv): In this case complainant contended that on 10.09.2011 the complainant filed an application for continuation of PPF account. Which is completed on 12.03.2011 hence issued a cheque for Rs. 13,000/ in favour of the opposite party drawn on S.B. Account maintained by the complainant. In spite of realization of the said amount had not credited to the PPF account. On the other hand the opposite party stated that the cheque submitted by the complainant to Bellare Post Office, the debit to the account at Bellare sub post office made on 31.03.2012 and realization intimation received at Puttur head post on 02.04.2012. As per the Rule 157(1) of the post office savings bank manual, the request for the continuation of the account shall be made within 1 year from the end of the year of the date of maturity and the complainant did not submit application the Form H for continuation of the account but he tendered cheque for crediting to his PPF account after prescribed period hence deposit made without option in form H treated as irregular deposit and the amount was not credited to the PPF account. On behalf of the complainant documents marked as Ex C1 to C8. After perusal of the documents produced by the complaint i.e Ex C1 Form H is the Xerox copy of the application for continuation of PPF account No. 50159. Which revels that the application form not filled up by the date stamp of the post office, signature, entry in pass book regarding the acceptance of Form H without original documents this forum not come to conclusion to the deficiency of the service rendered by the opposite party. Further complainant not produced original or not summon the above said Form H from the Opposite Party post office for satisfy the forum, hence the Ex C1 is not believable documents. Further more we also noted that the complaint not submitted the request for the continuation of the account within the prescribed period without continuation letter the complainant credited Rs. 13,000/- to his account by way of cheque. However we also noticed that Ex C4 letter dated 21.11.2013 clearly replied the complainant that non credit of deposit made to PPF A/C No. 50159. This document also shows the negligence on part of the complainant. In view of the above we hold that the complainant produced only Xerox copy of the document and the complainant not establish the case and failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint against opposite party No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.
In the result, we pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file shall be consigned to record room.
(1 to 7 pages dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th of November 2016)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI) (SMT. C.V.SHOBHA)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1: Sri. Subramanya,
Documents Marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Xerox copy of the application for continuation of PPF Account No. 50159.
Ex.C2: Xerox copy of the SB Account of the complainant maintained in Bellare Post Office.
Ex.C3: 16.01.2013 Xerox copy of the Letter issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex.C4: 21.11.2013- Original copy of the reply to the above with original cheque issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C5: 09.12.2013- Original copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex.C6: 24.03.2014- Office copy of the lawyer’s registered notice.
Ex.C7: Acknowledgements (2 in numbers)
Ex.C8: 28.03.2014- Reply to the above.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 30.11.2016. MEMBER
