Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/178

Sushil Kumar Madaan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master Faridkot - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

25 Jan 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :               178 of 2020

Date of Institution:     24.11.2020

 Date of Decision :     25.01.2022   

 

Sushil Kumar Madaan aged about 47 years, son of late Rajinder Kumar son of Des Raj r/o House No.32, Street No.1, Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Post Master, Post Office, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot.
3. Post Office, situated near Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd Bridge Market, 17 D, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Head Incharge.
4. Promila d/o late Rajinder Kumar, w/o Parminder Singh, r/o Street No.3, Narain Nagar, Faridkot.

                            .......Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

Present:      Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jaskirat Singh, Ld Counsel for  OP-1 to 3,

        Sh Pardeep Grover, Ld Counsel for  OP-4

 

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to release the amount of Rs.22,36,329/-lying deposited in the PPF account of Rajinder Kumar father of complainant alongwith interest and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that since 14.02.1997 late Rajinder Kumar father of complainant was having PPF account bearing no.0493089353 in Post Office, Faridkot with date of maturity of account as 31.03.2022. It is submitted that father of complainant died on 10.07.2018 and his mother had already died on 06.05.2006. Further submitted that as per pass book, amount of Rs.22,36,329/-was lying in the PPF account of his father. After death of his father, complainant and his sister informed OP-1 and 2 regarding death of Rajinder Kumar and asked them to

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

release the amount lying in said PPF account, but they kept putting off the matter on the ground that they are discussing the matter with higher officials because there was no nomination in the PPF account of Rajinder Kumar. It is prayed that both complainant and his sister are legal heirs of late Rajinder Kumar and his sister has no objection if amount deposited with OP-1 to 3 is released to complainant, but Post office authorities kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. In march, 2020 curfew was imposed due to corona and matter became silent, but in October, 2020, when complainant again approached OP-1 to 3 with request to release the amount lying deposited in PPF account of his late father, they flatly refused to release the same declaring that as per instructions of their higher officers, amount can be released to complainant only on production of succession certificate from a competent court. OPs have not been releasing the amount intentionally, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.11.2020,

 

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                         On receipt of the notice, OP-1 to 3 filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. Moreover, before filing the complaint, he has not issued any legal notice to answering OPs  and has not got issued succession certificate from the competent court for withdrawal of amount, which is mandatory as per law. However, on merits, they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that Rajinder Kumar deceased father of complainant was having PPF account with them and Shanti Kumari wife of Rajinder Kumar was nominee for said account and after the death of both Rajinder Kumar and his wife, said account is without any nomination. Therefore, succession certificate is required for withdrawal of amount lying in said account. It is further averred that amount to be sanctioned in present case is more than Rs.5 lacs and as per SB order 36/2020, the claimant is required to produce Succession Certificate.

 

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                         OP-4 also submitted her written version wherein admitted all the allegations levelled by complainant being correct and also made statement that written reply submitted by her be read as evidence on her part.

 6                                         Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        Counsel for OP-1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sudhir Kumar, Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkots Ex OP-1 to 3/1 and documents Ex OP-1 to 3/2 to Ex OP-1 to 3/5 and thereafter, closed the same. Ld Counsel for OP-4 suffered statement before this Commission that written reply submitted by them be read as part of his evidence and closed the same on behalf of OP-4.

8                                                        We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

9                                            From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that case of the complainant is that his father late Rajinder Kumar was having PPF account in Post Office. Date of maturity of said account is 31.03.2022, but father of complainant died on 10.07.2018. For said account, Shanti Kumari wife of late Rajinder Kumar was nominee, who had already died on 06.05.2006. After death of his father, complainant and his sister informed OP-1 and 2 regarding death of Rajinder Kumar their father and asked them to release the amount lying in said PPF account, but they kept putting off the matter on the ground that they are discussing the matter with higher officials because there was no nomination in the PPF account of Rajinder Kumar. It is prayed that both complainant and his sister are legal heirs of late Rajinder Kumar and his sister has no objection if amount deposited with OP-1 to 3 is released to complainant, but OP-1 to 3 kept lingering on false pretexts and finally refused to release the same saying, amount can be released only on production of succession certificate. Act of OPs in not releasing the amount intentionally, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand, OP-1 to 3 stressed only on the point that as per Saving Bank Manual, Succession Certificate is mandatory if the amount exceeds Rs.5 lacs and thus, succession

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

certificate is required for withdrawal of amount lying in said account. Amount to be sanctioned in present case is more than Rs.5 lacs and as per Saving Bank Manual SB order 36/2020, the claimant is required to produce Succession Certificate. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made. There is no rebuttal from OP-4.

10                          Ld Counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of order passed in First Appeal No.520 of 2009, decided on 12.09.2013 titled as Sr Superintendent of Post Offices and other Vs Gagandeep Kaur and F. A. No.1112 of 2009, decided on 12.9.2013 titled as Gagandeep Kaur Vs Sr Superintendent of Post Offices and others wherein Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh has held that complainant was entitled to the amounts in dispute (which is less than Rs.5 lakhs) without the production of succession certificate, but this is not applicable in present case as amount involved in present case exceeds Rs twenty lakhs and for obtaining the same, succession certificate is necessary to be produced.

11                                          We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for OPs. From the perusal of document Ex OP-1 to 3 /3

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

that is copy of letter issued by Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts  at Note 2, that reads as ‘‘If the eligible amount in a deceased account is above Rs.5 lakh where no nomination or legal evidence available, the amount shall be paid to the claimant on submission of ‘Succession Certificate’ issued by the court”, there remains no doubt that Postal Authorities are quite right as per law and are bound for not releasing the amount without production of succession certificate. The action of  OP-1 to 3 /Postal authorities in demanding ‘Succession Certificate’ from complainant is appropriate and genuine. Amount lying in the account of deceased father of complainant is about 22 lacs which exceeds Rs.5 lakhs and thus, as per norms set up by Government in Saving Bank Manual and as per instructions of Higher Postal Authorities, they are well within their rights and are complying with the orders of government as per SB order 36/2020 in asking for production of succession certificate and there seems to be no deficiency in service on their part.

12                                         From the above discussion and in the light of document Ex OP-1 to 3/3, this Commission is of considered view, that OP-1 to 3 / Postal Authorities are doing exactly as per instructions issued by government and there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on their part. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.

cc no.-178 of 2020

However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced on :

Dated: 25.01.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)                   (Param Pal Kaur)                         

Member                                      Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-178 of 2020

 

Sushil Kumar Madaan      Vs       Post Master & Others

 

Present:      Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jaskirat Singh, Ld Counsel for  OP-1 to 3,

        Sh Pardeep Grover, Ld Counsel for  OP-4

                  Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint case in hand is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced on

Dated: 25.01.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member