The complainant’s case is that complainant made investment of amount Rs.1,50,000/- in four monthly scheme with opposite party No.6. The complainant withdrew monthly interest. In May, 2013 the complainant went to the post office and gave four signed withdrawal form to receive the monthly interest but he did not get it. It is alleged that post master i.e. opposite party No.6 told the complainant to wait till 2 PM but the complainant was unable to wait till 2 PM and told post master to send the interest through one mutually known person and handed over the four withdrawal form along with four MIS book relating to investment mentioned in the schedule. The complainant also requested the opposite party No.6 to send the interests for the next month. The opposite party No.6 agreed and told the complainant that he would send the interest for the next month. The post master i.e. opposite party No.6 also took four withdrawal SB-7 Forms from the complainant with signature of complainant therein.
After some time it is alleges that the complainant after approaching opposite party No.6, requested him for getting interest. But the Post Master, opposite party No. 6 did not pay the money to the complainant on several occasions when the complainant went to opposite party No.6. The complainant was informed that as per withdrawal slip the complainant has withdrawn the money. So, the opposite party No.6 has nothing to do. Being refused by the opposite party No.6 the complainant has filed this case before this Forum getting redressal as laid down in para-27.
The complainant No.1 requested the O.P. No.6 to give back his money and books of the investments but the Post Master refused the request of the complainant. The complainant No.1 ran from pillar to post but none came to his rescue because he had no documents. Thereafter the complainant made application under provisions of Right to Information Act. Through the said act the complainant came to know that on 29.5.2013 all the four MIS accounts were closed prematurely and the investments were withdrawn.
The O.P. No.4, 5 & 6 contested this case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. These O.Ps. stated that after passing over more than one year on 25.8.2014 Mr. Badsa Alam made a cocked up story and appealed a RTI application before the SP of POS North Hooghly Division stating that his MIS Account have been closed prematurely by someone and he wanted to know when the SPM, Bengai S.O. made payment the premature amount which is nothing but an eye wash to fill up his own fault. On receiving the application dated 25.8.2014 S.P. of PO’s enquired the matter vividly and thoroughly and a suitable reply was sent on 24.9.2014. In the mean time the complainant No.1 preferred an appeal of RTI application. Through the ADPO (Admin) & CAPIO, Kolkata GPO, Kolkata-1 on 8.9.2014 received by the office of S.P. PO’s on 11.9.2014 and a reply was sent to the said complainant No.1 on 24.9.2014 along with copies of his signed withdraw vouchers in respect of four MIS account bearing No.60782145-148 under registered post, received by the complainant No.1.
As per their version, it is very clear and evident from the withdrawal form (SB-7) dated 29.5.2013 in respect of four MIS account that those accounts were prematurely closed and petitioner had received the entire amount by putting his signature on the acquaintance portion of the withdrawal form. The complainant did not dared to deny his signature on the withdrawal form dated 29.5.2013 in respect of four MIS account as also his signature on the acquaintance portion are not his own, even other receiving copy of those forms through RTI more than one year ago. It is categorically and emphatically stated that account were prematurely closed by applicant himself. The Postal Department is not liable for any uncalled for loss and agony of complainant. There is no deficiency in service. It is also case of the opposite parties that the complainant was a retired high school teacher and not a simple person or illiterate person. Knowing fully well the fact of premature closure on 25.5.2013 of his four MIS from where he used to draw interest and he did not inform any where till 25.8.2014. After that the complainant has made false allegation accusing post master opposite party No.6. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service and the case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, this case.
The complainant filed photocopies of some letters, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument. The opposite parties have filed filled up withdrawal form (SB-7), filled up ledger card, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainants are consumers of the opposite parties?
2.Whether the O.Ps. are liable for deficiency in service ?
3.Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion of this case.
In the evidence in chief the complainant has stated his case on oath. Opposite parties No.4, 5 & 6 have stated their case on oath. The evidence is oath verses oath. The complainant has filed some documents. The complainant nowhere denies his signature in SB-7 Form. Moreover he himself admitted that he put signature on the SB-7 Form and handed over the same to the post master i.e. opposite party No.6 for sending the interest by a third person who was mutually known to them. But the complainant did not mention or brought that person in the record as per his own statement. His documents show that he put signature in SB-7 Form. His documents show that from 28.9.2011 to 19.2.2013 and thereafter he took withdrawal keeping balance. So, as per his own admission regarding putting signature in SB-7 Form and the story of another person who was told to bring the money from the post office i.e. by one agent, Ashit Bhattacharjee as per para-10 of the complaint. Without the active co-operation and presence of Ashit Bhattacharjee, who is/was stated a mutually known person of complainant and Opposite Party No.6, nothing can be concluded regarding attribution of any guilt upon opposite party No. 6 i.e. Post Master. Plaint reading of the documents filed by the complainant who is an educated man and retired high school teacher, purported to establish the fact that money has been withdrawn by the complainant himself with or without the active help of Ashit Bhattacharjee. The record and contentions in the record is air like clear to establish the fact that the opposite party No.6, Post Master cannot be responsible wherein complainant himself has put his signature on SB-7 Form. So, after a deep deliberation of the nature of this case, allegation of this case and time gap of putting signature on the SB -7 Form and taking RTI and finally filing this case on 21.5.20415, is totally out of imagination of a prudent man. As such the complainant absolutely fails to peg his case by adequate cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence. As such the story is not believable as per material produced by the complainant. Hence, it is
Ordained
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the opposite parties.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
