ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1864 of 2013

1- Superintendent of Post Offices, Sultanpur

    Division, Sultanpur.

2- Post Master, Head Post Office, Sultanpur.

3- Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle,

    Lucknow.

4- Union of India trough Secretary, Department

    of Post & Telegraph, Ministry of Communication,

    New Delhi.                                                     …Appellants.

Versus

1- Indra Pal Mishra s/o Sri Yantri Prasad Mishra,

    R/o Village, Raimanpur, Post Office, Ahimane,

    Pargana, Miranpur, Tehsil, Sadar, District,

    Sultanpur.

2- District Savings Officer, Collectorate Compound,

    Sultanpur.                                                   .…Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Srikrishan Pathak, Ld. counsel for appellants.

Sri Indra Pal Mishra, the respondent in person.

Sri Santosh Kumar, respondent no.2 in person.

Date  25.8.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra Singh,  Member-   This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Ld. District Commission, Sultanpur in complaint case no.48 of 2008, Indra Pal Mishra vs. Superintendent of Post Offices & ors.

          The brief facts, of the appeal are that, that the complainant had nowhere mentioned and disclosed the registration number and the date of purchase of the KVPs and without the same, the appellants are unable to issue duplicate certificates. No evidence was produced before the ld. District Commission. The impugned judgment and order is malafide, illegal and against the facts of the case.

          The ld. District Commission failed to appreciate that the duplicate could only be issued in lieu of the original registration number duly endorsing in the record and in absence of original registration and actual date of purchase, the duplicate could not be issued.

          The representation of the complainant made to the District Authorities creates doubt as he made a claim to the District Magistrate regarding payment due in the year 1993 and by way of complaint, he was claiming the alleged renewed/purchased certificate in the year 1998 and 1999. The case of the complainant was highly suspicious as he claimed that the renewal of the certificates was done in the year 1998 and on the other hand, he claimed that the certificates were purchased in the year 1999 after taking the maturity value of certificates purchased in the year 1993. The judgment of the ld. District Commission is neither legal nor based on any evidence or facts. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order. 

          We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellants Sri Srikrishna Pathak junior to ld. counsel Dr. U.V. Singh, the respondent in person Sri Indra Pal Mishra and Sri Santosh Kumar, respondent no.2 in person.

We have perused the impugned judgment and record available on the file.

It is stated that the original Kisan Vikas Patra was lost during visit while taking it to the Head Post Office, Sultanpur about which information has been given to the Superintendent Post Offices, Sultanpur and concerned Kotwali. No duplicate has been issued. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application before the District Magistrate but he did not get any satisfactory reply. He filed a complaint case before the ld. District Commission.

The ld. District Commission has discussed all these letters given to the different authorities. The Dy. Post Master, Head Post Office, Sultanpur has stated before the ld. District Commission that the proposal form was weeded out after a year, therefore, he could not produce any document.

The respondent is present in person, is a very old person and stated that he has deposited money and his Kisan Vikas Patra has been lost. No duplicate Kisan Vikas Patra has been issued to him. The appellant totally denied sale of any Vikas Patra to the respondent.

The ld. District Commission reached the conclusion on the basis of the statement of Dy. Post Master, Head Office, Sultanpur and after perusing the other documents, passed the following order:

“परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध स्‍वीकार किया जाता है।  विपक्षीगण को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह आदेश पारित हाने के एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादी को परिपक्‍वता धनराशि माह जुलाई 99 को 148000/- रूपये एवं परिपक्‍वता तिथि 8 वर्ष सात माह पश्‍चात परिपक्‍वता धनराशि एवं उस पर  नियमानुसार बयाज एवं क्षतिपूर्ति के मद में पॉच हजार रूपये एवं वाद व्‍यय के मद में एक हजार रूपये अदा करें।”    

By the facts and circumstances of the case and by the statement of the Dy. Post Master, Head Office, Sultanpur and the correspondences made by the complainant regarding his Kisan Vikas Patra, we came to conclude that the judgment of the ld. District Commission is legal and needs no interference by this court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.   

ORDER

          Appeal is dismissed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

               (Sushil Kumar)                      (Rajendra Singh)

                      Member                          Presiding Member             

Jafri, PA I

Court 2

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

         (Sushil Kumar)                         (Rajendra Singh)         

               Member                             Presiding Member

Dated     25.8.2023

Jafri, PA I

Court  2