West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/104/2016

Sri Tarun Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master, Balichak Sub Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.104/2016

 

1)Sri  Tarun Kumar Patra, S/o Late Sushanta Kumar Patra,

2)Smt Prava Patra, W/O Late Sushanta Kumar Patra, Both R/O Vill- Rukutyapatna,  P.O. Brahmansasan, P.S. Debra, District Paschim Medinipur. ..………..……Complainants.

                                                                              Vs.

1)Post Master, Balichak Sub Post Office at Balichak, P.O. Balichak, P.S. Debra, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721124,

2)Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Medinipur Division, P.O. Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101,

3)Sri Biswanath Midhya, S/o Atul Midhya, R/O Bidhannagar, Balichak, P.O. Balichak, District Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721124....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Ashirbad Haldar, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Sukumar Parya, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -24/03/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that in the month of December 2006 & January 2007, the complainant no.1 Tarun Kumar Patra and his mother Smt. Prava Patra, the complainant no.2 opened three MIS accounts being nos.50736 of Rs.50,000/-, 50739 of Rs.40,000/- and 50740 of Rs.50,000/- respectively in the Sub-Post Office of the O.P. no.1.  At the time of opening of those accounts, OP no.3

Contd……………..P/2

 

                                                                                        ( 2 )

 Biswanath Midhya acted as an agent of the O.P no.1  O.P. no.3, being a postal agent and an influential person, mislead the complainants and forcefully kept those MIS Pass Books in his custody.  Sometimes thereafter the complainants came to know that O.P. no.3 in connivance with the then Postmaster and Postal Assistant managed to withdraw the entire amount of those three MIS accounts pre-maturely without intimating the complainants on 15/2/2008.  The complainants never authorized the O.P. no.3 to withdraw the said amounts of MIS.  Thereafter the complainants made various verbal and written complaints before the postal authority and following their complainants, a departmental enquiry was held.  Vide a letter dated 26/10/2015, Kshudiram Murmu, ASP (DN), Burdwan Division, the enquiry officer, ask the complainants to appear before the enquiry officer on 20/11/2015, but till date no fruitful result has been made out.  Complainants further submitted that as per rules, payment of Rs. 20,000/- or more from the post office should be made only by A/C payee cheque or Bank drafts but by violating the said rule, the then Post Master in convenience with O.P. no.3 has pre-maturely withdrawn the whole amount of those three MIS accounts. Therefore there is  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. nos.1&2.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. nos.1&2 to pay Rs.1,40,000/- with interest @12% p.a. from 15/2/2008 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the processing.

                     O.P. no.3 duly received notice of this case but he did not appear to contest this case for which the case was ordered to be heard ex-perte against him.

                The opposite parties 1&2 have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the opposite parties nos.1&2 that the present case is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer, that the complainants have no cause of action to file this case, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It is also the specific case of the O.Ps. that the complainant himself submitted the withdrawal form at Balichak, SO, for pre-mature closure of MIS accounts and signed the payment portion in his own handwriting after receipt of the closer account.  It revealed during departmental enquiry, that although the pre-matured withdrawals of the three MIS accounts were duly effected in favour of the complainants, the payments were made to Tarun Kumar Patra, the complainant no.1 in cash instead of cheque.  So there was simply a procedural irregularity on the part of the official concerned who effected the payment.  As such the complainant Tarun Kumar Patra, one of the account holders of the disputed three MIS accounts, was requested to attend at the Departmental Board of Enquiry held up on

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

( 3 )

20/11/2015 in the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Medinipur Division as witness in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent officials to confirm the procedural lapses on the part of the erring official while making payment of the aforesaid three MIS accounts to the complainant under clear receipt.  The procedural irregularity in making payment of the complainants does not mean that the payment was not at all made to the complainants.  The complainant himself was responsible for accepting payments of pre-mature values of those MIS accounts in cash instead of cheque despite being well aware of the fact that the payment should have been made in his favour through cheques instead of cash as per rules.  The person who himself is a party to the violation of rules cannot claim undue benefits by showing very violation of rules by others.  The complainants obtained the amount of  pre-mature closer of MIS accounts, signed on the left side as well as right side of each of the relevant withdrawal vouchers.  There was no illegality in the payment of pre-mature closer in favour of the complainants except the procedural lapses.  The enquiry in which the complainants attended as a witness was related to that particular lapse but having procedural lapse while the effecting payment does not mean that the complainants are entitled to get their due payments by more than once.  It is stated that the claim of the complainants is therefore baseless, motivated and malafide as they are  claiming an amount only after getting the said amount earlier with clear acquaintance of receiving the money.  The O.Ps. therefore claim dismissal of the case with cost.

           Both parties adduced no evidence in this case although they were given opportunity of adducing evidence.       

                                                                 Points for decision

1)Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2)Is the case barred by limitation?

3)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

4)Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

     For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

     At the very outset, it appears from paragraph 5 of the petition of complaint  that on 15/02/2008, the complainants  came to know that the O.P. no.3 in connivance with the then Postmaster and Postal Assistance have withdrawn the entire amount of three MIS accounts without giving any information to the complainants.  The complainants have therefore filed this case praying for directing the O.P. nos.1&2 to pay Rs.1,40,000/- towards

Contd……………..P/4

 

 

( 4 )

the value of those three MIS accounts and for compensation and cost.  So it appears that the cause of action arose on 15/02/2008 when the complainants came to know that the entire account of those MIS accounts has been withdrawn by the O.P. no.3 in connivance with the then Postmaster and Postal Assistance. Curiously enough, the present petition of complaint has been filed after lapse of long 8 years i.e. on 25/07/2016.  So in view of Section 24-A of the C.P. Act, the present petition of complaint is clearly barred by limitation and as such it is not maintainable.  In view of that, we are inclined not to  decide whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not.  The present petition of complainant is therefore held to be not maintainable as it has not been filed beyond the period of limitation  as provided under Section 24-A of the C.P. Act.

                All the points are accordingly disposed of. 

                In the result, the complaint case fails.   

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                  Ordered,

                             that the complaint case no.104/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                        Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                    Sd/-B. Pramanik.          Sd/- Kapot Chattopadhyay              Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                            President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur