The petitioner Aamal Kumar Guha filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition as well as from the evidence  is that the petitioner  was a MIS policy holder of Kaliaganj Post Office in the account No.5185942424. The principle amount of the said MIS was Rs.1,50,000/- ( One Lac fifty thousand). The maturity of the said policy was 07.08.2016. From the petition it is revealed that 07.08.2016 was Sunday. The petitioner requested the O.P. No.1  i.e the Post Master of Kaliaganj Post Office to give him the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- , Rs.7,500/- as Bonus  and last month interest of Rs.1000/-, total amount  Rs.1,58,500/-. On 06.08.2017 i.e one day prior to the date of maturity and O.P. No.1 asked the petitioner to sign two forms one withdrawal form and one account closure form No.SB7(A). The petitioner signed those forms accordingly. After signing the forms the petitioner got the money to the tune of Rs.1,47,500/-. On getting the amount the petitioner became perplexed and asked the O.P.No.1 why Rs.11,500/- has been deducted. The O.P.No.1 stated him that Rs.11,500/- was deducted as premature penalty. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner never submitted any written application to give him the said premature amount either to the O.P.No.1 or O.P.No.2.. On 07.10.2016 the petitioner inform the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 by written application through registered post. But no reply was received. So, the petitioner was compelled to file the petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of Rs.11,500/-, Rs.20,000/- for compensation for harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The petition has been contested by O.P.No.1 Post Master, Kaliaganj Post Office denied all the material allegations leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant petition is barred by principle of estoppels, acquisitions, waiver and limitation.

The further defence case is that the petition is not applicable as u/s.80 C.P.C has not been complied with. Further defence case is that the complaint is barred by the provision of Indian Post Office Act and the provision of Consumer Protection Act has not at all applicable. The further defence case is that  on 06.08.2016 the petitioner requested that O.P.No.1 to give the amount i.e. one day before the date of maturity. The further defence case is that  the petitioner Amal Kumar Guha  submitted SB7(A) form with a pass book in savings counter of Kaliaganj S.O on 06.08.2016 i.e on Saturday for premature closure. The further defence case is that there is no provision for payment of maturity value before the actual date of maturity. So the account was treated as premature closure with a deduction and after calculation the amount came Rs.1,47,500/-. The O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the written version it has been mentioned that the petition is not maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act as because the petitioner is not a consumer. According to the definition of Sec.2(1)(o) “service” means service of any description which is made available to potential ( users and includes , but not limited to, the provision of ) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport etc. etc. So, the present matter is related to the financial matter. So definitely petitioner is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(o). So the argument raised by the Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. that the petitioner is not a consumer is not at all tenable. So the instant case is maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

Now, the main point is to be considered  whether is there any provision under Postal Rule that any amount will be deducted for the premature closure of the account  i.e the instant MIS. In this regard the Ld.Lawyer for the O.P submitted Xerox copy of the postal rules. According to the rule 163 there is a provision for deduction of amount. So, the postal authority has correctly deducted the amount as per rule. In this case it is to be mentioned that the petitioner is a literate person. He signed the petition in English. So definitely it is presumed that he has gone through the MIS policy. But on the other hand the postal authority should aware any customer that due to the premature of policy certain amount will be deducted. For the instant case the premature date falls on Sunday. Due to the premature withdrawal for one day the amount has been deducted as per postal rule. The postal authority should bring the notice of the customer that he will loss amount for the premature withdrawal of the MIS policy. So, considering the facts and circumstances this Forum has nothing to do in favour of the petitioner. As such the petition is failed.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC - 79/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the O.Ps.