The fact of the case of the complainant in a nutshell is that complainant on 25.3.2010 opened two M.I.S. in the Post office of the OP no.1 for six years. The number of the said M.I.S. are 107712 (7668581757) dated 25.3.2016 and 107711 (7668581741) respectively. Subsequently, the two MIS were matured on 25.3.2016. After maturity it is seen by the complainant that in one MIS account the PMI was Rs.391/- but in another MIS the PMI amount was not shown. The complainant wrote a complaint to the M.D.G., Hooghly on 27.4.2016 regarding the discrepancy of the MIS Account and subsequently he wrote a complaint letter to the Superintendent of Post office on 12.5.2016. Thereafter, on several occasions the complainant went to the office of the OP no. 1 to know the fate of his M.I.S. but of no result. Complainant is a senior citizen and a retired School Teacher (Higher Secondary). The complainant thereafter on 17.8.2016 lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly Region against the Ops. The office of the Assistant Director, on the basis of the complaint lodged by
the complainant, sent a letter to the Ops and requested them to turn up in their office for settlement but the oPs did not turn up. Hence, this complaint.
The Ops contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the OP is that one M.I.S. A/c (107712) was opened at Hooghly MDG on 25.3.2010 in the name of Smita Bhattacharya, Sampa Bhattacharya and Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya with principal amount of Rs.1,09,500/-. The date of maturity of the said A/c was 25.3.2016 the deposit closed the A/c on 26.4.2016 and was paid Rs.1,14,975/- as matured value i.e. Principal Rs.1,09,500/- + Bonus Rs.5,475/-. The P.M. Hooghly MDG manually entered the PMM I in his calculation as per Rs.383/- for due one month as S.B.interest but was not able to pay the amount to the A/c holders as the finance system did not allow the same. As the office is running at present in C.B.S. platform, so the Post Master has to depend on the finance system. For this reason, the PMI was not paid to the A/c holder at the time on consulting the matter with circle processing centre and relevant rules, in position, some time has been taken as the same problem is now to the postal depart.ent. Finally it was decided that the P.M.I. for one month will be paid to A/c holder manually with showing error entry. Then the P.M. Hooghly MDG has verbally requested the A/c
holder to take the PMI from Hooghly MDG but approach from A/c holder is still waited. Again PMM Hooghly MDG has requested to A/c holder vide regd. post to receive the PMI, through letter dated 23.9.16 but instead of receiving money, applicant has filed this baseless case. The OP prays for dismissal of the case.
Complainant filed copy of letter dated 27.4.16 to the Post Master, Hooghly M.D.G. Copy of cheque no.779387 for a sum of Rs.2,30,341/-, copy of letter dated 27.4.2016 addressed to Superintendent of Post office, North Hooghly Division, Copy of MIS Pass Book, Copy of complaint lodged before the A.D., CA & FBP against the OP and Note sheet. Complainant also filed Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of Argument. Op on the other hand filed copy of letter addressed to the complainant, Copy of MIS account no.107712 and 107711 and copy of cheque issued in favour of the complainant dated 26.4.2016. Op also filed Written Version, Affidavit in chief and Written Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
Perused the complaint and evidence of the complaint and documents i.e. copies filed by the complainant. It is admitted position as written by the Post office in page 3 of Written version that Rs.383/- was not able to pay the amount to the A/c holder. As the Finest system did not allow the same. But the Post office had enough opportunity to mitigate the situation and take effective step to make payment this smallest amount of Rs.383/- . Such act are gradually increasing in Post office and different complaints have been heard in here and there regarding the untoward act of the Post office authority. They hardly hear the depositors complaint who is totally ignorant about the technical procedure . This conduct of course is laches of duty to the consumer for whose benefit the Govt. of India are making advertisement every day for keeping the money in the Post office. Their act is not only derogatory to the Public but also derogatory to the Govt. of India. So, the complainant is entitled his redressal because complainant was compelled by the act of the OP to come before this forum and filed case on 19.8.2016. So the case succeeds on contest. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 134 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. The complainant was compelled to come here after not getting redressal by the Post Master , Hooghly Chawkbazar. Accordingly, Post Master, Chawk Bazar, Hooghly abated the complainant to file this case against the Post office authorities. The OP /Post Master shall pay that amount of Rs. 383/- to the complainant as per his account calculation as admitted in page 3 of W.V. filed by the oP. Post Master shall also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for compelling the complainant to file the case. The Post Master shall also pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost. The OP/Post Master is also directed to pay Rs.7,383/- from his pocket . The Govt. shall not give this penalty from public revenue because case arose due to negligency of the OP/Post Master, Chawkbazar, towards public , the complainant. The OP/Post Master is directed to issue an A/c payee cheque of Rs.7,383/- in the name of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order i.d. Rs.200/- per day shall be paid by OP/Post Master till recovery of full amount and this amount shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Fund.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
