Sikkim

East

cc/11/2022

Govind Prasad Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master General - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Rampal

20 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANGTOK, SIKKIM

 

 DATED: 20.09.2024

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. 11 OF 2022

 

Shri Govind Prasad Singh,

Wife of Late Satrughan Ptasad Singh,

Aged about 49 years,

Resident of Development Area, Gangtok, Sikkim.

                                                          …  COMPLAINANT

 

Versus 

 

1.    Post Master General,

    Office of the Post Master General,

    Raj Bhawan, Gangtok, Sikkim. 

 

2.    Deputy Superintendent of Posts,

    Office of the Post Master General,

    Raj Bhawan, Gangtok, Sikkim. 

 

3.    Post Master,

    Office of the Post Master General,

    Headquarter GPO, Gangtok, Sikkim. 

                                    …  RESPONDENTS

 

For the complainant: Mr. Umesh Ranpal and Ms. Rubusha Gurung, Learned Counsel.   

For the respondents: Mr. Karma Thinlay, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Prarthana Ghataney and Ms. Ranjeeta Kumari, Learned Counsel. 

 

CORAM:

1. K.W.Bhutia, President

2. D.T. Bhutia, Member

 

Per: K.W.Bhutia, President

 

O R D E R

    By this complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainant seeks compensation for harassment and deficiency in services of the respondents. 

2.    The case of the complainant is that he had opened Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme Policy (hereinafter referred to as the policy) bearing account no. 1754693012 at General Post Office (GPO), Gangtok on 8th July 2005. On 9th May 2022, he received credit balance intimation from the office of respondent no.1 informing that as on 25th April 2015, a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs was lying in his account.

3.    It is the complainant’s case that since he had misplaced his passbook for the said policy while shifting his residence in December 2021, he had lodged General Diary (GD) at Sadar police station on 24th May 2022. He applied for issuance of a duplicate passbook from the office of respondent no.3 but was denied. He even approached the higher officials of the Post Office but to no avail. He then approached the Counsellor, State Consumer Helpline and lodged his complaint. Despite the attempt made by State Consumer Helpline, no settlement could be reached. Consequently, this matter was referred to this Commission by the State Consumer Helpline for redressal. Hence, this complaint praying for the following reliefs:-

(i)    payment of policy amount of ₹ 9,88,965 along with     pendete lite and future interest by the opposite parties;

(ii)    ₹ 5,00,000 as compensation for harassment/mental agony;     and    

(iii)    litigation charges. 

4.    The respondents did not file their written versions within a maximum period of 45 days as provided under Section 38(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and was therefore, debarred from filing the same. 

5.    ISSUE FRAMED:-

(1)    Whether the complainant had opened Senior Citizen’s     Saving Scheme Policy under account no. 10065 or     1754693012 at the General Post Office, Gangtok on 8th July     2005?

(2)    Whether the credit balance/matured claim of ₹ 6 lakhs     had accrued to the complainant under the said Scheme?     If so, whether the respondents had refused to pay the said     claim? 

(3)    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of     respondents?

(4)    Relief, if any?

6.    Learned Counsel for the complainant would rely on the evidence of the respondents witnesses (Man Kumar Chettri and Anil Kumar Thakur) to contend that complainant had Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme Policy bearing account no. 1754693012 at the General Post Office (GPO), Gangtok. He would submit that respondent’s witness, Man Kumar Chettri has admitted under cross-examination that credit balance intimation issued in the name of complainant shows that a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs is lying in account no. 1754693012 as on 25.04.2015. That, the said witness has also mentioned that after the adoption of core banking system, GPO started generating ten digit account number which was earlier five digit number. Further, the respondent’s other witness, Anil Kumar Thakur has also reiterated the same. The ledger (Exhibit-R4) mentions Govind Prasad’s old account number as 10065 (old) and 1754693012 (new).

7.    On issue no.2, Learned Counsel for the complainant would submit that credit balance intimation letter (Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-R6) clearly mentions that there is credit balance of ₹ 6 lakhs in the SCSS account of the complainant bearing no. 1754693012. Though the respondents contended that the concerned account was already closed on 10.07.2010 and the matured amount received, there is no acknowledgment receipt from the complainant to that effect. That, despite the complainant applying for duplicate passbook, the respondents did not issue the same and was in fact harassed by having to run from one office to another, which amounts to deficiency in their services.

8.    The case of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash Dubey and Another, Revision Petition no. 2140 of 2018 dated 30.04.2024 (NCDRC) was cited contending that when the written version of respondents are not taken on record, they cannot be allowed to file evidence indirectly. 

9.    Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents on the other hand placed reliance in the case of Nanda Dulal Pradhan and Another v. Dibakar Pradhan and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 822 wherein it was held that respondents will not be permitted to file their written statement (since sufficient opportunity was given earlier) but will be permitted to participate in the suit and cross-examine the witness and make submissions of merit. On the same lines, the case of Arn Infrastructure India Ltd. v. Hara Prasad Ghosh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 768 was cited that although respondent may not have filed its written version or participated in the proceedings, it has the right to address final arguments.

10.    Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents would contend that to be eligible for opening an account under the Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Policy, if a general public, one should have attained the age of 60 years as on the date of opening the account. For a Government employee, one should have attained the age of 55 years but less than 60 years and in the verge of retirement. That, the complainant being businessman falls under the first category (i.e. he should have attained the age of 60 years as on 08.07.2005) and as per the complaint (at page 10), he is aged 49 years as on 24.11.2022 and on 08.07.2005, he would have been merely 32 years, making him ineligible to avail the said Scheme. 

11.    Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the Scheme is for five years but the depositor has option to extend the account for a further period of three years by making an application in Form “B” within a period of one year after maturity of five years. In case the depositor does not close the account on maturity and also does not extend the account by making an application within the said period, the account shall be treated as matured and it shall thereafter be treated as Post Office Savings Account. That, the complainant has merely stated that he had forgotten about his investment due to family and personal problem and also states that he does not remember what documents were furnished at the time of opening of the Scheme, which are blatant misleading statements and raises serious questions as to whether the complainant is the actual account holder or an impostor. Relying in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Limited and Another v. R. Chandramohan, (2023) 7 SCC 775 it was contended that disputed factual questions which are serious in nature, could not be decided by the Commission under this Act. 

12.    It was contended that Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stipulates that no District Commission, State Commission or National Commission shall admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of cause of action. That, in the present case the complainant has not filed any condonation of delay application and therefore barred by limitation. Further, there is no iota of evidence to show that there was deficiency of services on the part of the respondents.

13.    We have considered the rival submissions. 

14.    Upon perusing the terms and conditions of the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme, it appears to have been introduced in August 2004 with dual purpose of encouraging savings and taking benefit of tax exemption. The name of the scheme by itself would be sufficient to understand that it is meant for senior citizens. Though the complainant has not mentioned his age on the body of the complaint, his date of birth according to the voter’s identity card (Exhibit-14) is 19.04.1973. This makes him 32 years 2 months in July 2005, when the concerned scheme is said to have been opened by him. Evidently, the complainant was not eligible to be considered for the said scheme.  

15.    It would be seen that the genesis of the complainant’s case was the credit balance intimation (Exhibit-1) received by him on 09.03.2022, which mentioned that as on 25.04.2015, a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs was lying in account no. 1754693012 of one Govind Prasad of Development Area, Gangtok. In order to claim the said amount, the respondents obviously asked for the passbook, which the complainant was unable to produce. According to him, it was misplaced in December 2021 while shifting his residence. 

16.    Though the timing of alleged loss of concerned passbook could be coincidental but a question would arise in the mind of any reasonable man as to why did he keep quiet all these years if he had really invested a substantial amount of money in the said scheme. What was the reason for the complainant to be active only after receiving the intimation on 09.03.2022? These questions may appear to be trivial but would have important bearing in unearthing the truth of the matter particularly when the identity of the actual investor (Govind Prasad) is in question.

17.    When the complainant was asked about basic documents that he had submitted while opening the said account at Gangtok Post Office, he would simply say that he does not remember. When asked about the name of the nominee, he would again mention that he does not remember. There is no explanation as to whether the complainant filed any application for extension of the said scheme after five years of its opening, as per the terms of the scheme. 

18.    In this context, we may note that the complainant has filed only a singular document of his identity, i.e. his voter’s identity card (Exhibit-14). The complainant’s full name there is “Govind Prasad Singh” son of “Satrughan Prasad Singh” . On the other hand, the name of the account holder of the present scheme is “Govind Prasad”. Whether Govind Prasad Singh and Govind Prasad are one and the same person cannot be decided with sole document (voter’s identity card) and definitely not by this Commission in an enquiry of summary nature. To determine whether the complainant is indeed the actual investor or he is only an impostor would require full-fledged trial and we would not like to rush into it.

19.    We may refer to the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel, (2006) 7 SCC 655 wherein it was held that proceedings before a Commission are essentially summary in nature and the issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated by the Commission. In the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Limited and Another v. R. Chandramohan cited by the respondents (supra) also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the same.

20.    In the light of the above discussions, we are unable to decide whether it was the complainant who had opened Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme Policy under account no. 10065/ 1754693012 at the General Post Office, Gangtok on 8th July 2005 or whether it was somebody else whose name resembles the first two names of the complainant. Issue no.1 is answered accordingly.

21.    The credit balance intimation (Exhibit-1) would show that a sum of ₹ 6 lakhs had matured in Senior Citizen’s Saving Scheme Policy account no. 1754693012. However, it cannot be said that the said amount had accrued to the complainant when the identity of the actual investor has not been established. In this context, refusal of the respondents to disburse the said amount to the complainant appears to be justified. Issue no. 2 is answered accordingly.

22.    In the light of the findings in issue no.1 and 2, we find that the complainant has not discharged the burden of proof that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Issue no.3 is answered in negative. 

23.    We do not find it necessary to go into the question of compliance with Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. 

 

    (D.T. Bhutia)                                (K.W.Bhutia)           

         Member                                              President  

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

1.    Govind Prasad (Singh)        -    CW-1.

WITNESSES EXAMINED BY RESPONDENTS:

1.    Man Kumar Chettri        -    DW-1.

2.    Anil Kumar Thakur        -    DW-2.

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

1.    Exhibit 1    -    Credit balance intimation letter.     

2.    Exhibit 2    -    General diary dated 24.05.2022.    

3.    Exhibit 3    -    Application for issuance of duplicate                     passbook    

4.    Exhibit 4    -    Screenshot of computer system.    

5.    Exhibit 5    -    Copy of letter dated 27.07.2022.    

6.    Exhibit 6    -    Copy of letter dated 28.07.2022.    

7.    Exhibit 7    -    Copy of reply dated 01.08.2022.

8.    Exhibit 8    -    Copy of letter/reply dated 17.08.2022.    

9.    Exhibit 9    -    Copy of letter dated 23.08.2022.    

10.    Exhibit 10    -    Copy of letter dated 26.08.2022.    

11.    Exhibit 11    -    Ledger copy of list.    

12.    Exhibit 12    -    Copy of letter dated 12.09.2022.    

13.    Exhibit 13    -    Receipt of IPO dated 23.11.2022.    

14.    Exhibit 14    -    Electoral voter identity card.    

15.    Exhibit 15    -    Evidence-on-affidavit of CW-1.

 

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY RESPONDENTS:

1.    Exhibit R-1        -    Evidence-on-affidavit of DW-1.

2.    Exhibit R-2        -    Ledger.

3.    Exhibit R-3        -    Notice dated 18.08.2021.

4.    Exhibit R-4        -    Ledger of account maintenance.

5.    Exhibit R-5        -    Relevant portion of annual                         inspection report.

6.    Exhibit R-6        -    Intimation letter dated 09.03.2022.

7.    Exhibit R-7        -    Delivery manifest (slip).

8.    Exhibit R-8        -    Application form.

9.    Exhibit R-9        -    Letter dated 27.07.2022.

10.    Exhibit R-10        -    Letter dated 01.08.2022.

11.    Exhibit R-11        -    Letter dated 01.08.2022.

12.    Exhibit R-12        -    Letter dated 17.08.2022.

13.    Exhibit R-13        -    Letter dated 17.08.2022.

14.    Exhibit R-14        -    Letter dated 23.08.2022.

15.    Exhibit R-15        -    Letter dated 25.08.2022.

16.    Exhibit R-16        -    Letter dated 26.08.2022.

17.    Exhibit R-17        -    Evidence-on-affidavit of DW-2.

18.    Document A       -    Relevant chapter of Senior Citizen’s                     Saving Scheme.

 

    (D.T. Bhutia)                                (K.W.Bhutia)           

         Member                                              President