IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/170/2016
Date of Filing: 17/11/16 Date of Final Order: 09/08/18
Complainant: Smt. Kakali Kansabanik, M/o Mitali Kansabanik,
138/1 Lalit Sen Lane, P.O. Khagra,
P.S Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, PIN 742103.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1) Post Master, Khagra Post Office
P.O. Khagra, P.S Berhampore
Dist. Murshidabad, PIN 742103.
2) The Manager, UTI Mutual Fund
Berhampore Center, K.K Banerjee Road.
P.O. P.S. Berhampore
PIN 742101.
3) Mr. Aloke Roy (Post Office Agent)
69, Maharaja Nadakumar Road.
P.O. Khagra, P.S Berhampore
Dist.- Murshidabad, PIN 742103.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Subhanjan Sengupta
Agent/Advocates for the Opposite Party : 1) Siddhartha Sankar Dhar
2) Rajib Ghosh
3) Siddhartha Gupta
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty …………… Member.
FINAL ORDER
A. K Senapati, President.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act 1986.
One Smt. Kakali Kansabanik, here in after referred to as the Complainant filed the case against the Post Master, Khagra Post Office, The Manager UTI Mutual Fund Berhampore Center and Mr. Aloke Roy, here in after referred to as the OPs alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is the mother of one Mitali Kansabanik who purchased one Childrens’ Gift Growth Funds Scheme under UTI on 28/10/96 at OP No. 1 through the OP No.3 and the date of maturity was 02/10/16. Subsequently the Complainant visited the OP No.3 once and again but he did not disclose about the scheme and she came to know from the Post Office that the amount had already been credited in her post office account amounting Rs.13,794/- on 02/05/04.Subsequently, it has come to notice that an amount of Rs. 13,500/- had been withdrawn from the said account.
The OP No.3 was entrusted to deposit the amount in the post office account and the OP No.3 did not return the savings book to the Complainant in spite of repeated requests. The Complainant lodged one GDE on 29/08/16 and recovered the pass book. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.73,500/- against the OPs.
The OP No. 1 put his appearance and filed written version on 22/08/17 inter alia denying material allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the petition is barred by law of limitation and the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is the specific case of the OP No.1 that there is an SB account in the name of Mitali kansabanik at Khagra post office being No. 887087 (new account No. 9585679094) and the account was opened through one Bhobesh Kansabanik, father of Mitali Kansabanik, as operator. It appears from the ledger book of the OP No.1 that a cheque bearing No. 304894 dated 30/04/04 for Rs. 13,791.71/- was deposited in the account and Rs. 13500/- was withdrawn on 11/01/05 and at that time the account holder was minor.
As per post office rule a minor’s account can be operated by the guardian till the accounts holder attains majority and the withdrawal voucher dated 11/01/05 had been preserved in the post office for 6 years as per rules. A duplicate pass book in respect of above noted account was issued and the account still stands at Khagra post office in silent mode. As Mitali Kansabanik has already attained her majority, the Complainant, being the mother of Mitali Kansabanik has no locus standi to file the case. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.2 filed written statement on 06/04/17 stating the details about the procedure and calculation for issuance of maturity value in the name of the unit holders of Childrens’ Gift Growth Funds Scheme, 1996. The OP No.2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.3 has filed written statement on 15/03/17 contending that the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by law of limitation. It is the specific case of the OP No.3 that the Complainant has no right to file the complaint as Mitali Kansabanik has already attained her majority. The OP No.3 has denied the fact that the OP No.3 had any nexus to withdraw the so called amount lying in the postal savings account of Mitali Kansabanik. The OP No.3 was an agent of UTI in 1996 and he was acting an agent in respect of purchase of Childrens’ Gift Growth Funds Scheme in the name of Mitali Kansabanik on receiving a draft of Rs. 5000/- dated 17/08/96 from Bhobesh Kansabanik, father of Mitali Kansabanik. As per rules the certificate should be delivered to Bhobesh Kansabanik by post as Bhobesh Kansabanik was the guardian of minor Mitali Kansabanik. After purchase of such scheme, the OP No.3 had/has no relationship with the parents of the Mitali Kansabanik and the postal authority never permits any agent to open any SB account and there was no question of delivery of pass book of the OP No.3 to the Complainant. It appears from the statements of the account of Mitali Kansabanik that a sum of Rs. 13,794/- was credited to her account in 2004 and Rs. 13500/- was withdrawn on 11/01/05 and the OP No.3 had no participation in respect of those transactions. The OP No. 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the version of both parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for Consideration
- Is the Complainant a consumer as per provisions of the CP Act 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she is the mother of Mitali Kansabanik. It is argued that the Complainant purchased a policy of Childrens Gift Growth Funds Scheme 1996 on 28/10/96 on making payment. It is argued that there are consumer disputes between the parties so the Complainant has locus standi to file the case.
In reply the Ld. Lawyers for the OPs submit that the Complainant has filed the case claiming herself as mother of the unit holders but she has filed the case without obtaining approval of Mitali Kansabanik who is a major. It is argued that the certificate issued by the UTI dated 17/08/96 shows that the date of birth of Mitali Kansabanik was on 02/10/95, so it is clear that Mitali Kansabanik attained her majority before the date of filing of the case (17/11/16). It is further argued that the OP No.1 has filed copy of ledger book of the account No.887087 from where it is apparently clear that name of the depositor was Bhobesh Kansabanik (father) and as per rule of the post office the guardian of a minor can operate the account of minor. It is urged that Bhobesh Kansabanik , being father of the Complainant, was operator of the savings bank account of Mitali Kansabanik during minority of Mitali Kansabanik and he withdrew an amount of Rs. 13.500/- on 11/01/05. They submit that the Complainant is not a consumer.
We have gone through the written complaint, written version, the evidence of both sides, documents and written arguments. The Complainant has claimed herself as mother of Mitali kansabanik . As per xerox copy of the certificate in the name of Mitali Kansabanik issued by the UTI on 17/08/96,(Annex. 1) name of the applicant was Bhobesh Kansabanik and name of unit holder was Mitali Kansabanik and date of birth of Mitali Kansabanik was 02/10/95. Therefore, it is needless to say that Mitali Kansabanik attained her majority long before the date of filing of this case.
As per section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act 1986,
“ Consumer” means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
The Complainant has claimed that she has purchased the policy but the policy itself proves that one Bhobesh Kansabanik, father of Mitali Kansabanik was the applicant of Children Gift Growth Funds Scheme in the name of Mitali Kansabanik dated 17/08/96. The Complainant has failed to establish that she hired the service of the OPs at any point of time. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer in terms of section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986. This point is thus disposed of against the Complainant.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action arose within the territorial limit of this Forum and claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
In reply the Ld. Advocates for the OPs submit that the Complainant has failed to establish that she is a consumer and so she is not entitled to get any relief.
We have considered the submission of both sides. We have already held that the Complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act,1986.
Hence, we find no reason to going into the merit of point No.2. This point is thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3 and 4.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OPs have deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief against the OPs.
In reply the Ld. Advocated for the OP submits that the OPs have no deficiency in service. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submissions of both sides. The Complainant has failed to establish that she is consumer in terms of section 2(1) (d) of the CP Act 1986. Moreover, the materials on record do not prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Therefore, we are of the view that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. In the result the Complainant case fails.
Reasons for delay:-
The Complainant case was filed on 17/11/16.
The OPs put their appearance and contested the case by filing written statements.This Forum tried it level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in view of section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986 and the delay in disposal of the case has been explained in day to day orders.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
ordered
that the complaint case No. 170/2016 be and the same is here by dismissed on contest against the OPs without any order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
