Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/09/20

Smt.K.Sarala W/o K.Buchaiah O/c Business - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Post Master, Branch Post Office, Madanapuram vg., & another - Opp.Party(s)

Sri C.Rajender Kumar

30 Sep 2009

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

       Wednesday, the 30^th day of September, 2009

  Present:-   Sri  T. Ashok Kumar, M.A., LL.B., I  Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge-cum-FAC President

          Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, B.Com. LL.B., Member

               Smt. B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member                      

C.C.NO. 20  Of   2009

Between:-

Smt. K. Sarala, W/o K. Buchaiah, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-81, Madhanapuram village of Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                                                                                  … Complainant

And  

1. Branch Post Master, Branch Post Office, Madhanapuram village,  Kothakota Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. The Postal Superintendent, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 25-9-2009, in the presence of Sri C. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri  P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, Member)

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,500/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.8.2007 till the payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and also costs of the complaint.
2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.40,500/- at Rs.500/- per month with OPs under  R.D. Account bearing No.33313 till 14.6.2007.  After completion of the term, the complainant approached OP-1 and filed claim application for payment of matured amount under R.D. on 10.8.2007.  After receipt of the claim, OP-1 forwarded the claim to OP-2.  Even after lapse of several months OPs have not paid the amount. As such the complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs.  Inspite of receiving the legal notice, there is no response from the OPs.  Thus the OPs rendered deficient services by avoiding payment of his saving amount even after maturity.  Hence the complainant is entitled for the same together with interest thereon  @ 12% p.a. from 10.8.2007 till the payment apart from compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and costs of the proceedings.      

3.    On the other hand it is contended by the opposite parties that it is true that the complainant has deposited the amount with them and also submitted claim form after its maturity and that in the month of August, 2007 the department has noticed fraud in R.Ds, S.Bs & M.I.S. by Sri K. Chandraiah, the then Sub Post Master, Madhanapuram Sub Post Office and that the department has completed investigation and a case was also registered against the said employee and that the claim will be finalized as soon as possible.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service by the OPs and that the complaint is not maintainable.   It is also contended that the services being rendered by the Government for free of cost as such the complainant is not a consumer and not entitled to claim any compensation against the State and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

4. The complainant filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7.

5.  The OPs filed their affidavit and no exhibits were marked on their    behalf.

6.  Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

7.  The points which fall for consideration are:

             (i) Whether the complainant is a consumer?      

2.    Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

8.    Point No.1:- There is no dispute with regard to the deposit of amount with the OPs and so also its maturity.  The contention of the OPs is that being a Government institution, the postal department is rendering services free of cost.  As such the complainant is not a consumer as she has not paid any consideration for the services of the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that OPs promised to give attractive rate of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment, as such the complainant deposited the amount with OPs and the OPs used the said money for its business and earned money indirectly on the deposit amount of the complainant.  Therefore the complainant is a consumer.  The Hon’ble N.C. in Neela Vasta Raje Vs. Amugh Industries & Another case reported in NC & SC on consumer cases 1986-95 at page 446 (NS) held that “When a company or firm invites deposits from the public for the purpose of using money for its business on promise of giving attractive rate of interest with security of investment and prompt repayment of the principal after the stipulated term whether depositor becomes a consumer and the company or firm provides service? Held such a transaction is clearly one of providing service for consideration and the depositor is clearly a ‘Consumer’ under the Act”.    In the present case also the OPs invited and accepted deposit from the complainant and promised to repay investment with interest and the said deposit amount was utilized by OPs for its business.  In the light of the above decision we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is ‘Consumer’ as defined in the C.P. Act.   Accordingly, this point is decided against the OPs.   

 

9.   Point No.2:- The OPs have not disputed about the deposit made by the complainant.  It is also clear from the counter of OP-1 that the said deposit amount was frauded by their own employee by name  Sri K. Chandraiah, the then Sub Post Master, Madhanapuram Sub Post Office and that they made complaint to police and got issued FIR against the said officer and department also ordered for departmental enquiry.  It is also not the case of the OPs that they have not received any claim application from the complainant and/or they are denying the payment on one or other reason.   Admittedly claim application was received and not yet considered and not paid the amount.  Even assuming that the employee of postal department committed fraud as contended by OPs, the complainant is entitled to her amount and the department is liable for it on behalf of its employee.  During the arguments the learned counsel for OPs also submitted that the department is ready to repay the amount to the complainant.  The Hon’ble N.C. in the above referred case in point No.1 also held that “Non payment of deposit amount even after lapse of matured period amounts to deficiency in service”.  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law, in our considered view the OPs rendered deficiency in services by not paying the deposit amount even after matured period.  As such the OPs are jointly and severally liable to refund the deposit amount to the complainant together with interest and other benefits.    The complainant is seeking direction to OPs to refund the amount together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 10.8.2007 i.e., from the date of submission of claim to OPs.  In our opinion, the rate of interest claimed by the complainant is higher side.   The Postal Department comes under the purview of Government of India, the postal department being public institution serving the nation.  Therefore, in our opinion, 8% p.a. is just and reasonable rate of interest to award from the date of claim application i.e., from 10.8.2007.   Further the complainant is claiming a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages and mental agony caused by OPs.  The complainant has failed to file material to prove her sufferance and claim of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.  As such in our opinion the complainant is not entitled for the said amount.  Moreover the Hon’ble N.C. in Laxmi Vikas Bank Ltd., Vs. P.R. Krishnan case reported in CPJ 1995 (1) P.43 held that “The conferment of a double benefit by awarding both interest as well as lumpsum compensation in our opinion is not justified in law”.   In the light of this decision we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled any lumpsum towards compensation because we have already awarded interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount payable by OPs.    However the inaction of the OPs, forced the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum by spending amount towards Court Fee and Advocate fee.   Therefore, we feel the claim of costs by the complainant is just and proper.    In view of the said circumstances, in our opinion Rs.1,000/- is reasonable amount to award towards costs of the proceedings.       
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the OPs.1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.40,500/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. thereon from 10.8.2007 till the payment and  Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.    The rest of the claims are disallowed.   

            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2009.           

 

                          MEMBER                            MEMBER                   PRESIDENT (FAC)     

                                                                                               Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-  

Ex.A-1:        Copy of RD A/c pass book.

Ex.A-2:        Original acknowledgement of receipt of RD A/c pass book.

Ex.A-3:        Legal Notice, dt.6.12.2008.

Ex.A-4:        Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A-5:        Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A-6:        Copy of letter addressed by OP-1 to OP-2, dt.8.12.2008.

Ex.A-7:        Copy of letter addressed to OP-2, dt.15.12.2008.

Exhibits marked for OPs:-

    - Nil-                                                                                

By the Forum:

    - Nil-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT (FAC)

Copy to:-

1. Sri C. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.