Date of filing of : 13-07-2007

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR

PRESENT

      Sri   Member

Thursday, the 28^th day of February, 2008

C.C.No.96/2007

Between:

K.Lokeswara

S/o D.No.7/664-1

Maruthi Gandhinagar, Anantapur District.                                                       …   Complainant

Vs.

             1.                                                                                

                S/o                 D.No.10/144,

                Durgamma Temple Street

            2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

3. The Head Post Master

 Head Post Office

                                                  …. Opposite parties

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 18-02-2008 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing, Sri  1^st opposite party is called absent and set-exparte and Sri

O R D E R 

            Delivered by Sri

1.         This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the deposited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and to grant costs of this complaint and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the

2.         The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is set out as hereunder:-

(a)       The case of the complainant is that they have deposited amount in Monthly Income Scheme (M.I.S.) through the 1^st opposite party in 3^rd opposite Party Branch,

The complainant used to withdraw the interest for the above said deposited amount through the 1^st opposite party from 3^rd opposite party whenever the complainants got doubt about the deposited amount in the above said account and requested the 3^rd opposite party not to issue any amount to the 1^st opposite party without permission of the complainant.  On enquiry of the complainant, the   3^rd opposite party said that the above said account number 4977 was withdrawn by the complainant,

(b)       Then, on demand of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party said that the amount of them withdrew on 09-01-2006 itself from the above said account. 

3.         The complainant herein demanded the 3^rd opposite party for the said amount deposited as he does not want to continue the same because of the deficiency in service and negligence of the 3^rd opposite party.  But the 3^rd opposite party denied re-paying the deposited amount as stated in the above that he is not liable for the same stating that the account was closed.  Then the complainant came to conclusion that the 3^rd opposite party colluded with  1^st opposite party and they might have forged the signature of the complainant and withdrew the deposited amount.  They further submitted that the 3^rd opposite party violated the Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.  Rule of 6 of the said Rules, 1987 clearly says that the payment of maturity value including the interest on MIS Accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by

4.         Further, the complainant issued a legal notice dt.14-05-2007 that the opposite parties to pay the deposited amount as mentioned above and they are jointly and severally liable for the said amount, because the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were colluded and forged the signatures of the complainants and withdrew the deposited amount.  But the 2^nd opposite party i.e. the Superintendent of Post Office, being the person responsible for the repayment when under whose jurisdiction the said amount deposited, gave a reply stating that the withdrawal amount was paid to the correct depositors only.  The complainant further submitted that as per the Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, the payment on maturity value including the interest on MIS accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by   In this case, the complainant neither got   The complainant further submitted that they denied all the allegations made in the reply notice of the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant withdrew the deposited amount.

5.        Further, the complainant submitted that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and there is gross negligence on their part.  Because, the 3^rd opposite party did not pay the deposited amount to the complainant as they feared about the security of their deposited amount.  Now, after the reply notice of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant doubt is confirmed and it is enough to prove the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the   2^nd   and 3^rd opposite parties.   Hence, the complaint is filed against the opposite parties.

6.         The 1^st opposite party was set-exparte.

7.         nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the narration of the 1^st opposite party about the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant, is quite different.  It is therefore, in the written version of the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party admitting the allegation of the complainant that the complainant used to withdraw the interest for the above said deposited amount through the 1^st opposite party.  The allegation that the complainants came to conclusion that 3^rd opposite party colluded with  1^st opposite party and they might have forged the signatures of the complainants and withdrew the said deposited amount is false.  The 3^rd opposite party further submitted that the complainants used to receive the monthly interest on the amount deposited through the 1^st opposite party only.  The complainants must check up their pass books every month to see the entries made by the Post Office.  It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the amount was paid on submitting the withdrawal form duly signed by the complainants only.  So, the complainants were silent for more than eight months of the account was closed as they are at fault.  The amount was paid to the correct persons and hence the 3^rd opposite party is not liable to repay the amount to the complainants.  Further, it is submitted finally that as lot of evidence is to be let in, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  Hence, it is prayed that the

8.         A memo was filed on behalf of the complainant by the learned counsel for the complainants on 22-01-2008 submitting that the complainant is admitting his signatures on the interest withdrawal forms only, but not in closure forms and the wording in the complaint as far as forgery plea concerned of his signatures on the closure forms is only his opinion but not as such plea of forgery.  Hence, the  

9.         In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed    3 documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3.  Ex.A1 is the legal notice (  Ex.A2 is the reply letter dt.16-05-2007 issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant’s advocate and Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of the letter of the 2^nd opposite party dt.04-07-2007 to the complainant’s advocate.

No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

10.       The counsel for the complainant filed written arguments.    We have heard the oral arguments at length of both sides.  The parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their cases and also produced the documents, which are marked as exhibits.

11.       On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the points that arise for determination are:-

1.   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties

      1 to 3 towards the

2.   Whether the complainant are entitled for the reliefs as prayed If so, to

3.  

13.       POINT NO.1 (a):-   The basic facts are not disputed and they are not reproduced herein to avoid a repetition.  Here, it is a peculiar case, wherein the postal authorities are not followed the procedure as per the Post Office   (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.  This consumer case is one of the batch cases (6) filed against the opposite parties herein on the file of this Forum.  It is no doubt that a complaint can be filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of unsatisfactory services.  This is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The only question, which requires consideration in this complaint is – whether the opposite parties are liable to reimburse its account holders if the officers of the post office i.e. Post Master or Assistant Post Master, commits deficiency in service and allowed the 1^st opposite party to withdraw the amount lying in the account of the complainants, without proper check or authorization. The complainant has deposited the amount in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) through the 1^st opposite party in 3^rd opposite party Post Office, Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, which he mentioned not only in the complaint, but also in the written arguments in support of his case, but the opposite parties 2 & 3 at last   without filing written arguments coming up with their stand by interpreting their own meaning suitable for them by way of   It is not the intention and purpose of the above said Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.

(b)       The learned counsel for the complainant further argued before us submitting that as usual the 1^st opposite party withdrawing the monthly interest from the 3^rd opposite party on behalf of the complainant herein.  It is the practice of the 1^st opposite party to obtain the signatures of the complainant on postal withdrawal forms, in turn submitting them before the 3^rd opposite party and used to handover the monthly interest amount accrued on deposits (MIS) to the complainant.  The complainant blindly believed the words of the 1^st opposite party and handed over the signed postal withdrawals to him, to get monthly interest from the 3^rd opposite party.    In that process, the 1^st opposite party misused the said signed withdrawal forms in order to get wrongful gain and snatched away the entire deposited amount in the Accounts (MIS) with active support and colluded with the 3^rd opposite party herein.    That is what actually happened.  If at all the postal authorities little bit vigilant and it is only on written application of the complainant with regard to premature withdrawal account, if the existing Postal Rules followed by the 3^rd opposite party, the situation will be entirely different.  Even st opposite party (Agent) might not have scope for cheating the complainant.  That’s why postal authorities, Rules from time to time have been changing to prevent the    Here, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties conveniently enough             co-operated the 1^st opposite party to do rest of things successfully.   When a Rule is specifically says procedure to be followed, if it is other-wise, what it means?  It is nothing but cheating the public.  Rules are there, to implement and follow    but not the discretion of the Postal Officials to act according to their will and pleasure and there is no room for other alternative except to follow the Rules.  It is mandatory but not recommendatory.  There is no complaint in any Police Station about it.  The Public will deposit the amounts in Post Offices and Banks for safety of their money and officials of said   The officials of Post Office (3^rd opposite party) must have been more vigilant at least at the time of closing the deposit of amount prematurely by the complainant. They ought to have pressed for complainant’s presence at the time of withdrawal of such huge amounts and it is not the monthly interest of withdrawal usually done by the 1^st opposite party in the circumstances of the case.

 (c)      The learned counsel for the complainant argued vehemently in such a manner as stated above, to safeguard the interests of his client/complainant.   He further argued that payment by   A universally accepted safe and convenient mode of discharging the liability for goods purchased or services hired is by making the payments through nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Hence, irreparable loss, damage, mental agony, inconvenience, strain and stress are much caused to the complainant, because of negligent attitude of the 3^rd opposite party. It can not be explained in terms of words and the complainant himself only knows the suffering.  He also further argued that this series of cases demonstrate the highly unethical and unscrupulous conduct of the opposite parties.  The conduct of the opposite parties was not only highly detestable but   Such tendencies have to be curbed with heavy hands by compensating the victims adequately as a deterrent.

(d)      The learned counsel for the complainant advanced his arguments further by submitting that it is universally admitted that depositors of money for interest are consumers.  Consumers are concerned with efficient service for which they pay consideration.  Service provider is liable to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him.  He further contended that there is no material before this Forum submitted by the opposite parties that Postal Department enquiry and its report about their officials even, for our consideration.  Another contention is made by the learned counsel for the complainant that the officials of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties pointed out the mistakes on the part of the complainant and hiding their   Clearly the officials of Postal Department violated the existing Rules provided and they are root cause for entire   Who has to blame for this situation and responsible for total negligence of the officials?  Now, it is for us to determine who is at fault and provide adequate remedy and to do justice to the parties concerned. Finally while concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that nearly since two years the complainant are starving and they are depending on monthly interest on their deposited amount with Post Office.

(e)       The Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 were framed by Government of India under section 15 of the Government Savings Account Act, 1873.  Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for applicability of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and Post Office Savings Bank Account Rules, 1981 in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.  Under Rule 4 of the Post Office Savings Bank Account Rules, 1981 a deposit account under the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 can be opened by two/three adults in joint names.  The third opposite party followed the said Rule while opening an account of the complainant and it is also mentioned introducer’s name i.e. 1^st opposite party.  The whole crux of this consumer case and determination of it depends upon appreciating the documentary evidence apart from affidavit evidence.  The learned advocate Sri nd and 3^rd opposite parties brought to our notice that the complainant signed on withdrawal form and took away money and after a gap of eight months later approached the 3^rd opposite party to pay money.  The opposite parties paid money to the correct persons, but not other-wise.

(f)      To understand and determination of this Consumer Case, it is essential to go through the relevant Rules framed as per Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 as they are under for reference:-

(Mode of paymentPostal Department shall pay the amount deposited to the depositors through the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987.  The Rule 6 under the head ‘important orders ‘ of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 says that “ the payment of maturity value including interest on MIS Accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by

(ii)   Closure of AccountThe Rule 9 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account), Rules, 1987 says “ the deposit made at the time of opening account shall be paid by the Post Office at which the account stands to deposit on or after expiry of six years from the date of the opening the account alongwith bonus equal to 10 percent of the amount deposited, on production of the pass book accompanied by a written application.

(iii)   Here, it is a pre-mature closure of account:-  The Rule 10 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 says “ not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, on an application made by the depositor in this regard, he may be permitted to withdraw the deposit and close the account any time after expiry of a period of one year from the date of opening of such account, subject to the condition that an amount equal to 5 percent of the deposit shall be deducted and remainder paid to him, provided that no such deduction  shall be made if the amount is closed after expiry of three years from the date of opening of such account.“  This Rule was pressed into service by  3^rd opposite party while calculating the amount.    He has not applied his mind while disbursing of the amount by following Rule 6 of the above said Rules.  It is not permitted by law to do so in such a hasty manner.

(iv)      Relying on the above said Rules, the learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant never submitted such an application for premature closure of account to the Postal Department, further to act upon.  The opposite parties 2 & 3 did not follow other Rules.  The learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties argued that written application means withdrawal form.  But Rule 9 says that written application but not mentioned in it as ‘withdrawal form.’  The said learned counsel of 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties admitted and mentioned in written arguments filed that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 of the Post office Rules, which says that the amount if it is Rs.20  It creates a doubt in mind.  When a procedure is prescribed to follow, an official of Postal Department should follow it, other-wise, an adverse inference can be drawn under the circumstances of the case.  The learned counsel for the complainant argued that inconsistent statements made by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties in their respective counters that actually 1^st opposite party was withdrawing monthly interest from the 3^rd opposite party by obtaining signatures of the complainant.  It is true even according to the   3^rd opposite party.  In view of the above analysis, the citations quoted by the learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties do not offer any assistance to support his case.  The facts of this consumer case are entirely different and so they are not applicable to the facts of this case.

(g)       A reading of the version of the opposite parties’ and after hearing the arguments of them and upon perusal of documentary evidence, it is clearly goes to show that they have no   In their version, the opposite parties 2 & 3 boast of the fact that they have promptly made the payment to the complainant.  No doubt, they have done the act promptly.  But the payment they made was not the payment to the correct persons.  Thus, there is utter negligence and indifference in the discharge of duties by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  They have miserably failed to exercise the power conferred on them by way of specific Rules under the said circumstances.  Without realizing the grave and serious nature of consequences that such wrong payment can bring serious consequences, the opposite parties have acted which underlines the deliberate indifference and irreconcilable incompetence.  Thus, on account of the callous, indifference and deficiency in service of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the complainant’s family were put to great mental shock and agony and therefore this complaint has been laid by the complainants.  It would have caused a lot of mental strain, agony and sorrow in the family, which can not be equated in terms of money.  This case is an instance of monumental inefficiency.

(h)       The crucial question to be considered is whether the evidence on record warranted a conclusion that permitting the agent to withdraw the amount of the depositor was due to any default or willful act of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties did not file the withdrawal form signed by the complainant for our perusal to verify the contents of any other corrections were made in the withdrawal form for the reasons best known to them.  The burden is on the part of the opposite parties to discharge by stating that they have acted in good faith and disbursed the amount as per the Rules.  That has not been done by the opposite parties.  It speaks for itself.

(In view of the definition of and “ deficiency” in sections  2(1)(o) and 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency in service can not be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or other-wise in relation to any service.  The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down.  Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of

(j)         It appears that the opposite parties had adopted a dogmatic, diffident and unhelpful approach and more-over negligent in their attitude towards the complainant.  We could not have come across a better case of fraud committed by a Post Office at   We want to make this consumer case an exemplary case and eye-opener for every civic body, public authority, Government organization etc., who are engaged in the service for the public at large and also who are duty bound and have the obligations of maintaining service properly, other-wise, they have to be dealt with strictly and punished for the offence of deficiency in service as defined under section 2(1

(k)       The complainant may not be able to indicate the loss or damages suffered by them and it is for the Consumer Forum, which is vested with powers to grant appropriate compensation and even can grant reliefs not prayed for by the complainant provided the same are justified on merits.  Being the protector of the interests of the consumers, this Forum can not be a silent spectator of the adamant attitude on the part of the opposite parties.  If such an act is allowed then the relevance of the legal institutions and the court system would be first causality.

 (l)    If really as contended by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties everything had been done as per the Rules, then its escapes one’s comprehension as to why no letter (written application at the time of premature closure of account) was taken from the complainant at the Post Office, Further, 2^nd opposite party had not conducted a proper enquiry and had not taken action against the person responsible for the dereliction of duty.  The Rules are clear to the effect that payments are not made to the complainant intentionally then the persons responsible should be answerable.  Even according to Ex.A2 reply letter dt.16-05-2007 of the 2^nd opposite party to the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the complainant further argued about the allegations contained in Ex.A2 are in the nature of self-   that as stated in the Ex.A3 that the depositor is at fault by giving the MIS Pass Book by signing in the withdrawal form and the depositor did not observe the precautions checking the entries made in the Pass Book as and when the Pass Book received back from the agent.  The account was closed on 09-01-2006.  But the depositor complained after lapse of more than one year.  The depositor is required to keep the Pass Book in his personal custody.  He should check the entries in the Pass Book after every deposit or withdrawal.  The Post Office enters such as closed “ at the time of closing the account.  Had the depositor observed this, he could have noticed and complained immediately.  So, the negligence on the part of the depositor facilitated (1^st opposite party) to Had the depositor been taken proper care, this would not have arisen. But the opposite parties did not mention in their letter i.e. Ex.A3, which is addressed to the learned counsel for the complainant about the Rules, which are not followed by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them.  That is the attitude of the opposite parties.  It would show the negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  All officials of Postal Department are responsible for this entire episode.  In the circumstances of the case, it can be said that all of them colluded alongwith 1st opposite party.  He is the Small Amounts Savings Agent.  According to him, he is nothing to do with all the transactions between the complainant and 3rd opposite party.  Nobody will aspire for double payment that to with Central Government agency i.e. Post Office.  No harm will be done to anybody, if Rules are followed.  It is all due to inefficiency and negligence of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties but nothing else. 

(m)     Under section 14(1  The orders are required to be passed in accordance with justice and equity on the basis of the evidence available on record.  The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for the protection of the consumers and matters are required to be decided by having rationale approach and not technical one.  This is made clear in Indian Photographic Co. Ltd., Vs. H.D. 1999(6) SCC 428. 

(n)    At the time of oral arguments on behalf of the complainant that an important and relevant case brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the complainant for applicability of Rule of Law to the facts of the present case, which was delivered by our National Commission in a case of          Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar   The facts- in-brief : the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs.24,601.37 in the name of their daughters in the Post Office and also paid additional amount to make it Rs.25,000/-.  At the time of maturity when they demanded back their money, they were told that they deposited only Rs.500/- .  The account of the respondents was opened by the agent of the Post Office for the National Savings Scheme and the Post Office denied its liability.  It took the stand that the amount had been embezzled and the criminal case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.  The District Forum by majority order dismissed the complaint though the President of the Forum, who was in minority held that the complaint should be allowed.  In appeal, the State Commission rightly set aside the order of the majority of the District Forum and directed that Rs.25be paid to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a.    This Forum/court is exercising sovereign function of dispensation of justice.  Law on the subject is well settled.  

          The ratio is laid down in the above case is securely covered and applicable to the facts of the case on hand.  It is clear that for the mistake, negligence of the Official of Post Office,   It is no longer justifiable to make further delay and justice is to be done to the complainants in view of the circumstances of the case.  Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits.  In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that it is a case where the negligence of the opposite parties is rampant and it speaks for itself. 

(o)       So far as the negligence of the opposite parties is concerned, we have already recorded a finding that non-payment to the complainant as per Rules was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  So far as awarding punitive damages is concerned, Forums are required to take into consideration the conduct of the persons while doing their duty.  In such a situation, it is for the Post Office to establish that its officers have acted in good faith and without negligence.  Hence, in our view, there is no substance in the contentions of the opposite parties. Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, we hold that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties including Inspector of Posts, Sub-Division are liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- in   This awarding of compensation to the extent of Rs.20  It is to be borne in mind that in most of the cases consumers invest their hard earned money, may be either retirement benefits or their life savings to get shelter and in some cases, after retirement.  All the depositors in any financial institutions must be cautious always and they should not believe middle men. They must verify the entries in pass books issued by the financial institutions from time to time to avoid a pathetic situation thereafter.

  (p)   In these set of circumstances, it is apparent that there is negligence in discharging of duties by the opposite parties herein by showing irrelevant reasons and deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are required to pay adequate compensation to the complainants herein.  In our view, this would amount to unfair trade practice which is required to be controlled by the higher ups the negligence and dereliction of duties of the opposite parties happened in this case not only frustrates the purpose of depositing of the amount under MIS and the depositors may lose confidence in administration of the opposite parties and it ruins the depositors welfare.  We are of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs.20  We find considerable substance in the submissions made on behalf of the complainants by the learned counsel.  It is well settled that compensation can be quantified only on rationale basis on consideration of documentary and/oral evidence produced showing the extent of loss suffered by the consumer/complainants for the negligence of the opposite parties. In our view Rs.20  For the facts stated above, it is clear that the 3^rd opposite party acted negligently in permitting the 1^st opposite party to withdraw the said amount.  This resulted in total loss to the complainants.  It is a   This makes it very crystal clear that this Consumer Forum is an appropriate authority before whom consumers can agitate their grievance.  In human affairs, disputes are likely to arise   The principles of natural justice are found on fairness, a right to be heard and dealt with fairly.  The duty of court is to confine itself to the question of legality.  Its concern should be (a) whether a decision – making authority exceeded its powers; (b) Committed an error of laws (c) Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice (d) reached a decision, which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or (e) abused its powers.  If the decision making body is influenced by considerations, which ought not to influence it; or fails to take into account, the court will interfere. Justice is an attribute of human conduct.  Law, as a social engineering, is to remedy existing imbalances, as a vehicle to establish an egalitarian social order in a Socialistic Secular Bharath Republic. 

(q)   Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for adequate compensation would certainly mean that the complainants, who are deprived of the benefit, which they are entitled for two years together, they should be adequately compensated.  Measure for adequate compensation can be  lump-sum amount, may be a reasonable rate of interest by way of damages. 

(r)        In our view, this is a fit case in which the law laid down by the Apex Court is required to be applied with full   The citizens of a Socialist Democratic Republic should not feel helplessness against undesirable functioning in the Government or Semi-Government officers.  Because of such harassment crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance, or putting in other words, succumb to the pressure of undesirable functioning of the officers instead of standing against this.  This part succinctly discussed by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible.  It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance.  Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness.  An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it.  Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.  It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.”  Further, in the aforesaid  “ “  We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.   We are satisfied that it is a fit case wherein we have to give the reliefs to the complainants.  All the exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants will clearly go to show that the reliefs sought for by the complainants can be said to be totally justifiable under the circumstances of the case.  So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  It is therefore necessary that the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- is payable to the complainants from the public fund immediately, but to recover the same from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable

14. POINT NO.2:-    In view of the point No.1 as discussed above and taking all the aspects into consideration, we are of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two rd opposite party Post Office,   with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13-07-2007 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.  This point is accordingly answered.

15. POINT NO.3:-   In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two   3^rd opposite party payable from the date of complaint i.e. 13-07-2007 with interest  @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants and also to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainants within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

            It is further directed that Post Office authorities shall fix the responsibility of the officers by holding enquiry,   The amount of compensation of Rs.20  This point is answered accordingly.

            A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements,   Copy is sent to all leading National Dailies, Press for appraising the Post Offices and its deposit-holders about their rights and obligations.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on 28^th day of February, 2008.

                  PRESIDENT (I/c)                                                 MEMBER                                       

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,                   DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM,

                 ANANTAPUR                                                    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT :   -NIL -                                   OPPOSITE PARTIES:  - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1  -    Legal notice dt.14-05-2007 issued to the opposite parties by the

Ex.A2 -    Reply letter dt.16-05-2007 issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the

 Ex.A3 -   Reply letter of the 2^nd opposite party dt.04-07-2007 addressed to the

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-NIL-

                  PRESIDENT (I/c)                                             MEMBER                                           

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,                   DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM,

                 ANANTAPUR                                                   

Typed by JPNN