PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person present. As prayed, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Advocate, 51, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court, New Delhi-110001 (Mobile No. 9899600501), who is present in the Court is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Commission on behalf of the respondent. She has been issued paper book and other documents related to this revision petition. She may be disbursed Rs. 7,500/- towards out-of-pocket expenses. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner had opened a savings Bank Account in Dhanmandal Sub-Post Office on 13.09.1975. Thereafter, he did not approach the post office. The account was closed after the expiry of six years as per rules. Thereafter, he approached the post office on 10.05.1988 for duplicate pass-book but it did not ring the bell. Thereafter, another application was moved on 15.07.1994 and the 3rd application was moved on 29.02.96 but it did not produce the desired result. On 07.01.2005, he applied for final withdrawal of the amount but the same was not considered. Ultimately, the petitioner lodged complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the amount available in the Savings Account of the complainant with up-to-date interest and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. 3. Aggrieved by that order, the Post Office preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal. 4. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainant had got only a sum of Rs. 305/- and he did not proceed as per rules. He should have moved an application that his account should be revived but he moved an application for duplicate pass-book. It is also brought to our knowledge that the complainant, who is present cannot be said to be an illiterate person. He appears to be a literate one and argues in English language. In these circumstances, he should have tried to get his account revived as per rules. 5. However, the deficiency on the part of the petitioner/OP is quite discernible. It appears that they have been harassing a person for a paltry amount in the sum of Rs. 305/- for the last more than two decades. He should have been informed what the procedure is and money should have been paid to him. However, payment of compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- at the very earlier stage appears to be on the higher side. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner/OP- Post Office would pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 305/- plus up-to-date normal interest paid for the purpose of Savings Bank Account w.e.f. 1975 i.e. from the date of deposit of amount plus onwards amounts and costs of Rs. 10,000/- within 60 days at his address through demand draft otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% per annum. This is also made clear that the respondent has already got the legal aid free of costs. He has also got litigation charges Rs. 5,000/- which are the extra amount. 5. The Revision Petition stands disposed of. |
