Sri. N. Premkumar (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant has taken 3 Kisan Vikas Patras (KVP) of denomination Rs.10,000/- x 2 and Rs.5,000/- x 1 from the third opposite party on 28.03.1998. The date of maturity of these certificates was on 28.09.2003 and the maturity value was Rs.50,000/-. On 29.09.2003, the complainant approached the first opposite party for encashment of the KVP. They informed that the amount would be encashed only after a lapse of one week and thereby she was forced to reinvest the amount due to their compulsion. She also signed papers for reinvestment and entrusted the KVP’s to third opposite party. But the third opposite party has not returned the certificates (KVP) due to the enmity with her regarding the R.D. Account. 3. With regard to the said dealings, the complainant has filed a complaint on 22.09.2003 to the first opposite party. Thereafter, she filed another complaint to the first opposite party. After that, she got a reply from the second opposite party stating that the fresh KVP are in the custody of the third opposite party. Then she approached the third opposite party several times for the new KVP. But the third opposite party had not given it and also insulted her. This causes mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, this complaint is filed for getting new KVP’s and compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 4. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admitted that 2 Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs.10,000/- each and one for Rs.5,000/- in the name of the complainant were presented before the third opposite party’s office on 29.09.2003 for re-investment. The date of maturity of these certificate was 28.09.2003 and the maturity value was Rs.50,000/-. The complainant demanded that the date of reinvestment should be made as 28.09.2003. But the third opposite party explained that there is no provision to issue the certificate with a back date. She also questioned the staff of opposite parties and raised sarcastic comments. She again came back with an application for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras for Rs.50,000/- through an SAS agent. In the instant case, as the investor herself had presented the matured KVP and applied for reinvestment at the Post Office Counter on 29.09.2003, this investment could not be treated as one canvassed by the SAS agent. The said fact was also explained to her. Then she asked for immediate cash payment. As per law and regulations, the third opposite party has no power for cash payment above Rs.20,000/-. She was asked to place a request to the second opposite party to issue cheque in favour of her for the maturity value. Meanwhile, the complainant approached the third opposite party on 1.10.2003 and demanded receipt for the KVP presented for encashment on 29.09.2003. Accordingly, a receipt was issued on 1.10.2003. 5. The opposite parties’ office did not function from 2.10.2003 to 5.10.2003 on account of various holidays. On 6.10.2003, the complainant approached the third opposite party with another demand for reinvestment of maturity value of the KVP with effect from 29.09.2003. Accordingly, fresh KVP for the maturity value of the surrendered KVP were prepared in the name of the complainant, with effect from 29.09.2003. On 16.10.2003, the complainant came to the third opposite party’s office for collecting the certificate (KVP), but she did not produced the receipt given on 1.10.2003. She refused to give the receipt in manuscript or to sign on the office copy of the receipt. Therefore, the certificate could not handed over to her. The KVP issued in the name of the complainant are kept under safe custody of third opposite party. A registered letter was also sent to her on 22.10.2003 for collecting the same. But she refused to accept the letter. All the above said details were again explained to her on 27.11.2003 by the Asst. Superintendent of Post Office who enquired the matter. But she was reluctant to settle the issue and accept the certificates. The complainant was again requested to collect the KVP’s from the third opposite party’s office by issuing letters on 11.10.2003 and 10.03.2004. But she determined to keep the issue unsettled. 6. The opposite parties’ contention is that this complaint is filed not due to any deficiency in service, but due to some other intentions. There is no denial of service. The complainant was requested to collect her certificates from the third opposite party, but she prefers to keep the case unsettled. The opposite parties have extended the best service to the complainant in spite of objectionable and sarcastic comments from the complainant many time. 7. The allegation of the complainant that the third opposite party has denied the certificates due to enmity is quite baseless. The third opposite party has not behaved impolitely. The complainant is in the habit of making various demands, which could not be accepted as per rules. When her demands are not accepted, she came up with this complaint. The complainant is well aware that the fresh KVP’s issued on 29.09.2003 are safe in the post office. These certificates are not immediately required by the complainant as they mature only on 29.4.2012. 8. The fact of this case has already been explained in O.P. No.76/04 by opposite parties, which was filed by this complainant. That O.P. was dismissed due to the non-payment of the required court fees by the complainant. In that O.P., her claim was for a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. In the instant case, her claim is only Rs.10,000/-. The other allegations regarding mental and financial agonies due to the non-receipt of the certificates or cash is not proved. The 3rd opposite party has not unauthorisedly retained the certificates. They issued formal receipt to the complainant for having received her matured certificate on 1.10.2003. The third opposite party is bound to obtain an acknowledgment from the complainant on delivery of the certificates. As the complainant was not willing to do so, the certificates were not delivered. 9. They also submitted that during and after the disposal of O.P.76/04, the complainant filed petitions before District Collector, Pathanamthitta, Chief Ministers Public Contact Programme 2004, and Chief Ministers Redressal Cell etc. For which, reply was also submitted by the opposite parties. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged the opposite parties by baseless allegations in spite of the best services rendered to her. Her claim is intended to gain undue privilege and it lack merit. Therefore, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 10. On the above pleadings, the followings points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the Original Petition is maintainable? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Compensation and Costs? 11. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant and one witness who were examined as PW1 and PW2. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Ext.A1 is the reply letter dated 11.12.2003 from second opposite party. Ext.A2 is the copy of complaint-dated 22.09.2003 to the second opposite party. Ext.A3 is the copy of complaint to first opposite party dated 9.12.2003. Ext.A4 is the letter-dated 11.12.2003 issued by the second opposite party. Ext.A5 is the copy of the RD A/c. passbook issued by opposite parties. Ext.A5(a) is the relevant portion in page No.17 of RD Account pass book. Ext.A6 is the discharge summary from Pushpagiri Hospital dated 6.11.2004. Ext.A7 is the letter of enquiry-dated 17.11.2003 issued by the second opposite party. Ext.A8 is the reply of Ext.A7 dated 27.11.2003 by the complainant. Ext.A9 is the reply letter dated 1.07.2004 by first opposite party. On the basis of the evidence, complainant canvassed for allowing the complaint. 12. For the opposite parties, the third opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced are marked as Ext. B2 to B7 series. Ext.B1 was marked through PW1 and it is the copy of post office savings bank ledger page No.75, 76. Ext.B1(a) is the relevant entry in Ext.B1. Ext.B2 is the copy of surrendered receipt of KVP dated 29.09.2003 issued by the complainant. Ext.B3 is the copy of attendance register of third opposite party. Ext.B4 is the attested copy of letter to second opposite party by third opposite party in connection with the issuance of cheque for surrendered value of matured KVP. Ext.B5 is the copy of discharged journal of third opposite party. Ext.B6 is the copy of discharged journal in which payment of Rs.10,000/- given in No.33BB06433, to complainant. Ext.B7 is the returned envelope sent to the complainant. Ext.B7(a) is the postal receipt of letter dated 22.10.2003 to the complainant. Ext.B7(b) is the letter enclosed in Ext.B7. After the closure of evidence, both sides heard. 13. Point No.1: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the dispute herein is a consumer dispute. Therefore, the first point is answered against the opposite parties. 14. Point Nos. 2 & 3: The complainant’s case is that she purchased 3 KVP’s from the third opposite party. The maturity value is Rs.50,000/- and the date of maturity is on 29.09.2003. On 29.09.2003, she approached the third opposite party for encashment. But instead of paying the maturity value of Rs.50,000/-, the third opposite party compelled her to reinvest the same and accordingly she reinvested the said amount. But the third opposite party has not handed over the new KVP’s irrespective of the complainant’s demand. Both the non-payment of the maturity value and the non-delivery of the new KVP’s are deficiency of service of the opposite parties. Therefore, she prays for allowing an order for the delivery of new KVP’s along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 15. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with documents and produced one witness. The complainant and the witness were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts. A1 to A9. 16. On the other hand, the opposite parties’ main contention is that the complainant approached the third opposite party on 29.09.2003 and surrendered three KVP’s and demanded Rs.50,000/- the maturity value of the Kissan Vikas Patras. The third opposite party told that he has no powers to issue cheque for Rs.20,000/- and more and that power is vested to officials of Head Post Office and also told that he will do the needful for the release of the maturity value of the complainant’s KVP’s. He also told that it will take some time for the release of the amount from the Head Post Office. At that time she told the third opposite party that she intends to reinvest the amount. Accordingly, she obtained the forms required for the reinvestment purpose and returned it after filling the forms and putting her signature. After few days, she again came to the third opposite party and asked for the acknowledgment receipt for the surrendered KVP’s., which was also issued by the third opposite party. After few days, the complainant approached the third opposite party for the delivery of the new KVP’s who demanded the surrender of the acknowledgment receipt issued earlier or to acknowledge the receipt of the new KVP’s in writing. But the complainant refused the third opposite party’s demand. In the circumstances, he had not given the new KVP’s. Thereafter, the complainant has not turned up for collecting the new KVP’s irrespective of the opposite parties intimations to the complainant for collecting the KVPs. Thereafter, the said KVP’s were given to the complainant through this Forum. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. They canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, the third opposite party filed a proof affidavit and submitted certain documents. The third opposite party has been examined as DW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.B2 to B7 series and another document was marked as Ext.B1 at the time of cross examination of PW1. 17. On a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the opposite parties have intimated the complainant to accept the fresh KVP’s as per Exts.A1, A7 and B7. Even then the complainant has not turned up to accept it without any justifications. It is also noted that the said KVP’s are in the safe custody of second opposite party. As per law, they are instructed to get an acknowledgment at the time of delivery of fresh KVPs. The complainant was not willing to do so. Therefore, the certificates were not delivered. Moreover, the complainant does not immediately require the certificates, as it will mature only on 29.04.2012. 18. According to the complainant, the third opposite party has compelled her to reinvest the matured KVP’s. But she failed to substantiate any evidence to prove that aspect. It is seen that in normal cases, the inspiration behind the investment is profit motive. In the instant case also profit motive of the complainant cannot be ruled out. Another contention of the complainant is that she was in need of fund at the time of reinvestment of KVP’s. As per Ext.A6, discharge certificate shows that the complainant has been an inpatient and was on treatment from 26.03.2004 to 29.04.2004. She has also undergone an operation. But the reinvestment date of KVP’s was on 29.09.2003. She has not produced any evidence to show that at the time of reinvestment, she is having illness to undergo treatment on 26.03.2004 onwards. Therefore, Ext.A6 is no way connected to the need of money on 29.09.2003 for the complainant. Moreover, she also admits that she collected matured KVP’s of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on 7.10.2003 and 8.10.2003 respectively from Valanjavattom Post Office. 19. It is also pertinent to note that during the pendency of this case, complainant accepted the fresh KVP’s as per the direction of this Forum. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of this dispute, we are of the view that there is no deficiency or laches on the part of the opposite parties in their dealings in respect of the KVP’s and this complaint lacks merits. 20. In the result, this O.P. is dismissed. No costs. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of November, 2008. (Sd/-) N. Premkumar, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : A.N. Kamalamma. PW2 : Suresh. K.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Reply letter dated 11.12.2003 from second opposite party. A2 : Copy of complaint-dated 22.09.2003 to the second opposite party. A3 : Copy of complaint to first opposite party dated 9.12.2003. A4 : Letter-dated 11.12.2003 issued by the second opposite party. A5 : Copy of the RD A/c. passbook issued by opposite parties. A5(a) : Relevant portion in page No.17 of RD Account pass book. A6 : Discharge summary from Pushpagiri Hospital dated 6.11.2004. A7 : Letter of enquiry-dated 17.11.2003 issued by the second opposite party. A8 : Reply of Ext.A7 dated 27.11.2003 by the complainant. A9 : Reply letter dated 1.07.2004 by first opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Madhusoodhanan Pillai. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Copy of post office savings bank ledger page No.75, 76. B1(a) : Relevant entry in Ext.B1. B2 : Copy of surrendered receipt of KVP dated 29.09.2003 issued by the complainant. B3 : Copy of attendance register of third opposite party. B4 :Attested copy of letter to second opposite party by third opposite party in connection with the issuance of cheque. B5 : Copy of discharged journal of third opposite party. B6 : Copy of discharged journal in which payment of Rs.10,000/- given in No.33BB06433, to complainant. B7 : Returned envelope sent to the complainant. B7(a) : Postal receipt of letter dated 22.10.2003 to the complainant. B7(b) : Letter enclosed in Ext.B7. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) A.N. Kamalamma, Edathitta Veedu, Thekkumbhagom Muri, Niranam Village, Thiruvalla Taluk. (2) The Postmaster General, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Postal Superintendent, Thiruvalla. (4) ThePostmaster, Niranam. (5) The Stock File. | 
