JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainants purchased 6 year National Savings Certificates VIII Issue, Joint B Type amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and the op no.3 issued three certificates in the denomination of Rs. 10,000/- each on 12.04.2006 with effect from 29.04.2006 under Certificate Nos. 6NS/79EE 752331, 6NS/79EE 752332 and 6NS/79EE 752332 and the maturity date was fixed on 29.04.2012.

          It is further submitted that the complainant no.1 made the complainant No.2 as the Joint holder that in case of death of account holder i.e. complainant no.2 and as per Income Tax Regulation under section 80C of the Income Tax Act 1961, 6 Year National Savings Certificates VIII Issue will qualify for deduction u/s 80C of Income Tax Act 1961 and the said deduction is available only to an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

          On maturity the complainant was entitled to receive the maturity amount of Rs. 48,010/- only on the date of maturity of 29.03.2012.  So complainant approached the op no.3 being the post office at which the certificate was registered but the op no.3 failed to discharge the certificate for reasons best known to the op no.3.

          Subsequently complainant no.2 submitted a representation dated 02.05.2012 to op no.3 requesting to look into the matter and reimburse the maturity amount against the said 3 certificates.  Being aggrieved by the action and inaction on the part of the op no.3, complainant no.2 submitted another representation on 15.07.2012 before the op no.1 on 16.07.2012 requesting to pass necessary order for encashment along with interest as per law.

          Subsequently on the basis of the representation dated 15.07.2012 op no.1 passed an order dated 16.08.2012 under Memo No. SB3/L-515/7/12 directing the op no.2 to take necessary action towards settlement of the case and further directed to give a suitable reply to the complainant under intimation to op no.1 and treat it as ‘Most Urgent’.  Subsequently being aggrieved by the action and inaction on the part of the op nos. 2 & 3, complainant submitted another representation on 03.01.2013 to op no.1 requesting to pass necessary order for encashment of the certificates and in the meantime the Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts (F.S. Division), Dak Bhawan New Delhi passed an order dated 31.01.2013 under Memo No. F. No. 65-01/2013-SB to the op no.1 requesting to enquire about the matter and send a detailed report and op no.2 through letter dated 03.05.2013 under Memo No. DPOST/E/2012/02068 intimated the complainant that the NSCs were issued irregularly in the name of HUF and the case has been taken up with the appropriate authority for regularization of the irregularity in respect of the issue of certificates and regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainants.

          Op no.2 further sent a direction to the op no.3 to take necessary action as per order of the Directorate but the complainants approached the op no.3 on several occasions for encashment of the certificates but it was not yet disbursed and complainant realized that the intention of op no.2 to harass the complainant for reasons best known to the op no.3 to give their services no doubt and in the above circumstances complainant has prayed for redressal and for reimbursement of the said amount and other relief.

          On the other hand ops by filing their written statement submitted that no doubt Shrimati Sudha Bhartia and Shri Bishnu Bhartia purchased NSCs from the Sech Bhawan Post Office being Nos. 79EE 752331 to 79EE 752333 and having denomination of Rs. 10,000/- under Registration No. 19539 dated 29.03.2006.  But prior to that as per order of the Ministry of Finance (DEA) Circulated vide Directorate letter No. 113-10/2004 – SB dated 12.08.2005 NSC in the name of HUF has been discontinued w.e.f. 13.05.2005.  But Shri Bimal Chandra Mondal, the then Postal Assistant, Sech Bhawan Post Office accepted the above noted NSC purchased application and for such irregularity disciplinary action was taken against Sri Bimal Ch. Mondal under East Kolkata Division office Memo No. SB10/Co-x Corr/165/4/13 dated 18.06.2013.

          It is further submitted that however the Ministry of Finance was requested for regularization of the sold NSCs through Chief Postmaster General (PMG), W.B. Circle under East Kolkata Divisional office Memo No. SB10/Co-Corr/165/4/13 dated 02.07.2013.  But the Directorate vide its order F. No. 65-01/2013-SB(Pt) dated 29.10.2013 received through CHMG letter No. SB/HUF-102/1/2013 dated 05.11.2013 intimated regularization of the certificates for payment to the holder with savings bank rate of interest and it was informed to the holder for taking payment from Sech Bhawan Post Office and the Sub-Postmaster of Sech Bhawan post office called the holder to the Post Office on 28.03.2014 for taking payment of the principal value of NSC along with SB rate of interest from 29.03.2006 i.e. from the date of issue up to till date but the certificate holder did not take payment and he filed this case for full maturity value of the certificates.

          In fact op acted sincerely as per direction of the Directorate of Post Office.  But there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops.  But truth is that Bimal Chandra Mondal the then Sub-Postmaster illegally issued such NSCs for which necessary departmental action was taken against him and op has nothing to do because they have acted as per order of the Directorate of Post Office for which there is no ground to consider the complaint and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                         Decision with reasons

          In the present case after considering the complaint and the written version, it is proved that ops have admitted that Sech Bhawan Post Office sold 3 NSCs having Nos. 6NS/79EE 752331, 6NS/79EE 752332 and 6NS/79EE 752332 of Rs. 10,000/- each vide Registration no. 19539 dated 15.03.2006 in the name of Sudha Bhartia and Bishnu Bhartia (HUF) but it is evident from the ops’ version and document the Ministry of Finance (DEA) Circulated vide Directorate letter No. 113-10/2004-SB dated 12.08.2005 NSC certificates in the name of HUF has been discontinued w.e.f. 13.05.2005.  It is no doubt a fact that on 29.03.2006 Sech Bhawan Post Office had no the legal authority to sell such NSCs in the name of any HUF.  But anyhow that was sold to the complainant as Hindu karta as members of HUF, apparently selling of the same by the post office after acceptance of such order of the Finance Department no doubt proves that there was negligence and deficiency and callousness on the part of the Post Master General (PMG).  It is unfortunate that postal authority Sub-Postmaster was not aware of the said order that means the Postmaster General of West Bengal Circle is not aware of the fact that their post offices are not aware of such order.  Then it is proved that PMG is very much negligent and deficient manner in this regard and in fact there was every communication gap in between the PMG and other post offices and it simply proves that the entire postal administration is being run by the PMG, W.B. Circle in callous manner.

          But it is settled principle of law for the callousness of the PMG, the customer who purchased the NSC shall not be deprived  rather customers shall have to get the said matured amount when customer has purchased such NSCs and in the present case peculiar factor is that the said NSCs were purchased on 29.03.2006 and the date of maturity of the said NSCs were on 29.05.2012, that means within 6 years prior to 29.03.2012 the postal authority was gossiping and their staff, administration were enjoying cool air in their room without inspecting the position of such sell about any NSC to the customer even after existence of order of the Finance Department as already mentioned and reasonable period expired after selling such NSCs as on 29.06.2006 but the entire postal authorities were sleeping by placing oil in their nose and for last 6 years what steps had been taken by the postal authority is not explained.  Then it is clear that the entire postal administration is run by callous staff and they have their no business to go through the order of the Finance Minister but they are only present for the purpose of attending the office to take their salary on completion of any month.  But they have their no responsibility and diligence to give any sort of instruction to the customer after considering their right to sell or as per order of the Finance Department.

          Considering all the above facts we are convinced to hold that the whole postal administration acted illegally and also caused several harassment to many customers in such a manner.  For last 6 years they were passing their days like a frog inside a well and when this complainant submitted for proper disbursement then the frog came out from the well and began to cry stating that it is the fault of the Sub-Postmaster of Sech Bhawan as he did not follow the Finance Department’s order dated 13.05.2005 and that was ventilated for the first time when complainant prayed for disbursement.  This is no doubt callous and negligent activities of the postal administration and how long this callous administration shall be in West Bengal to deprive the customers in such a manner.  It is most surprising that NSCs had been sold by the op having their no knowledge about finance order can be a believable all and it was their fault and there was no intimation to the complainant about such order or cancellation of the said certificates etc within 6 years.  It simply proves that the complainant has been harassed and we are of opinion that deposited amount was in the custody of the op for last 6 years and that amount was in the custody of the postmaster and certificate was issued by the postal department and so legal ground on the part of the op as shown is completely an after thought. 

          Fact remains the maturity amount shall be paid by the op to the complainant for overall callousness, negligent and deficient manner of service for running unfaithful service to the customers and in fact laches and negligence and callousness and all sorts of negative attitude on the part of the ops are found in this case.  No doubt complainant has been harassed by the ops.  Op did not respond till the matter was referred to the higher authority by the complainant and considering all the above fact and circumstances, we are convinced to hold that negligence and deficiency on the part of the op is proved beyond any manner of doubt even an idiot can believe this.

          After considering the whole episode and the defence of the complainant we are convinced that the defence as taken by the op is completely baseless defence because they have failed to express for what reason for last 6 years those frogs were in the well and that frogs came out from the well after submission of the letter by the complainant for disbursement of the maturity amount.  The entire fact simply proves the wretched condition of the Postal Department.  Then what is the necessity of the PMG.  PMG has his moral activity on behalf of the Postal Department.  Is it a fault of the complainant?  Is it the misconception of the administration after lapse of 6 years?  PMG may show the good attitude to the complainant by paying the maturity amount when fault was on the part of the ops.  It is settled principle of law if fault is on the part of the op, then op shall have to compensate for that and but ops are legally bound to pay the entire maturity amount and also interest 8 percent p.a. w.e.f. 29.03.2006 over the same till full payment and full satisfaction of the decretal amount by the op.

          In the result the complaint succeeds when the entire allegation of the complainant has been admitted by the ops.  Faulty employees may be penalized but ops are legally bound to pay full amount with interest to the complainant as per order and on payment ops may penalize the particular staff who committed such fault in the eye of PMG.  But for fault of the staff the consumers must not be harassed by the PMG or their any office.

          Accordingly the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 10,000/- against all the ops.

          Ops are jointly and severally directed to refund and pay the full matured amount of the said 3 NSCs as on 29.03.2012 and also ops shall have to pay interest at the rate of 8 percent p.a. over the maturity amount since 29.03.2012 and till its full payment to the complainant and it must be paid within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and if it is not paid within the stipulated time ops jointly and severally shall have to pay punitive damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if penal interest is collected then it shall be deposited to this Forum in the account of President, DCDRF, Kolkata Unit-II.

          For harassing the complainant since 29.03.2012 and till date by the ops and for causing mental pain and agony and sufferings, ops jointly and severally shall have to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and that shall be paid within one month from the date of this order along with other decretal amount failing which penal action shall be started against then u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which they shall be responsible to pay further penalty and fine.