This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 19.08.2019 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri in reference to CC No 24 S 2015. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Babita Agarwal registered a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri on 11.02.2015 to the score that she had deposited Rs. 40,000/- at Kurseong Head Post Office for purchasing four Kishan Vikash Patra each of Rs. 10,000/- for a maturity period of six and a half years on 10.06.2000 on maturity period fixed on 10.12.2006 amounting to Rs. 20,000/- for each certificate in total Rs. 80,000/- for four certificates as maturity value. In the meantime, the Complainant had shifted from Siliguri to Calcutta after marriage and for that reason she could not keep remembrance about the placement of said certificates on the date of maturity. In last part of 2013, she recollects the memory and had deposited for encashment of the said certificates in December 2013 for getting maturity value. The Post Office of Kurseong Head Post Office asked her to came after 15 days to collect the maturity value cheque amount with PAN Card and Voter ID Card. At the time of purchasing the said KVP Babita Agarwal had no Voter ID or Aadhar or PAN Card. After marriage her in laws changed her name Babita Agarwal to Sangita Agarwal and accordingly PAN, Voter ID and Aadhar Card have been made in the name of Sangita Agarwal. The said documents were produced along with a required affidavit to show the change of her name. The further case is that at the time of claim of the maturity amount Babita Agarwal had no valid documents to prove herself as Babita Agarwal as after marriage her name was changed as Sangita Agarwal. However, the Complainant had family Ration Card with his father in the name of Babita Agarwal. The said Ration Card was surrendered with Food and Supply Department Baruipur and fresh Ration Card was issued in the name of Sangita Agarwal.  From the Ration Card bearing No 635024 it was quite evident that there was an old Ration Card issued by Food and Supply Department Siliguri and Baruipur Food and Supply Department ultimately, issued fresh Ration Card in the name of Sangita Agarwal. Rather, in the PAN Card there is a provision of inserting the name of Father and Sangita’s father’s name as mentioned as Govindaram Agarwal who happens to be the biological father of Sangita alias Babita Agarwal. The further case is that the Complainant had a Bank Account lying at UCO Bank Siliguri where her old name Babita Agarwal was mentioned and the photocopy of the passbook was also handed over to the authority for clearance of the maturity amount. The Post Office Authority has intentionally and deliberately failed to handover the maturity value to the fixed depositor and for that reason she has registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The Post Master of Kurseong Head Post Office, Superintendent of Post Office Darjeeling and Post Master of Siliguri Head Office also were made parties to this case. The Opposite Parties filed the Written Version to contest the case and contended that one unknown person submitted the four KVPs stood in the name of Babita Agarwal for encashment of maturity amount but when the signature of the holder of the said certificates kept in office record were verified then signatures did not tally with the record. The Signatures differed, so the claimant was asked to produce the Voter ID, PAN Card of the depositor Babita Agarwal but the said person could not produce the said documents in the name of Babita Agarwal. Rather, Babita Agarwal personally did not come to the Post Office to intimate the change of name of the certificates holder before the maturity. The further case of the Post Office is that at the time of purchasing the KVP certificates in the year 2000 the system KYC was not introduced and for that reason without obtaining KYC the certificates were issued in the name of Babita Agarwal. So, the Post Office had no authority to disburse the amount as claimed by the said unknown person who claimed herself as Babita Agarwal while all the documents produced in this case in support of the claim stands in the name of Sangita Agarwal. The Ld. Forum after recording evidences and after hearing the arguments and in consulting with the relevant documents came into a conclusion that the genuinity of the claim related to a complicated question of facts and laws and which could be answered by a regular Competent Civil Court and for that reason the instant Consumer Complaint was dismissed on merit. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the observation of Ld. Forum and the decision of Ld. Forum was incorrect with full of errors and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time and was admitted on merit. Notice was sent to the Post Office Authority who has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Mr. U. Bhattacharjee. The case of the appellant has conducted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Dalmia. Argument of both sides was heard.

Decision with reasons

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides the admitted position in this case is that four number of KVP was purchased by one Babita Agarwal, Burdwn Road, Siliguri from Kurseong Post Office within the jurisdiction of Siliguri Head Post Office and Siliguri Head Post Office is one of the parties to this case and for that reason the cause of action touches the jurisdiction of Siliguri D.C.D.R.F. The maturity date of such four KVPs fixed on 10.12.2006. It was placed for encashment in the year 2013. The Post Office Authority has refused the claim on the ground that the certificates were purchased by one Babita Agarwal and the claim submitted by Sangita Agarwal and Post Office Authority could not find any documents to hold that Babita Agarwal and Sangita Agarwal are same and identical person. Ld. Advocate of the Appellant cum Complainant at the time of argument highlighted an affidavit sweared by Babita Agarwal where she claims that before her marriage she was known as Babita Agarwal and after marriage with one Mahindra Agarwal at Baruipur South 24 Parganas she converted her name as Sangita Agarwal. The said affidavit further speaks that the earlier Ration Card before marriage was issued by the Competent Authority bearing No 635024 was recorded in the name of Babita Agarwal and subsequently it was converted after changing her name as Sangita Agarwal. Ld. Advocate produced the highlighted family Ration Card where Babita Agarwal before marriage used to hold the said Ration Card within Siliguri Municipal Corporation ward No 9 and after marriage the said Ration Card was surrendered and it was reissued again in the name of Sangita Agarwal in the place of Babita Agarwal at Baruipur South 24 Parganas where Babita Agarwal after marriage used to settle at her matrimonial home at Baruipur. Ld. Advocate further mentioned that the Post Office Authority had the opportunity to release the maturity value of the said KVP certificates in favour of Babita alias Sangita Agarwal as because the Post Office Authority in their Written Version admitted the fact that when as per Post Office’s norms and manual when the holder of a certificate alters her name after marriage she can record her new name after marriage before the Postal Authority and also to record her new address there on and when the discharge of her certificate is sought by a holder who had not registered the change of his or her name with the office, the discharge may be allowed on the holders signing the acquaintance in both the new names and old names provided that the signature of  his/her old name tally with the original signature in the record of the Post Office. The Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Parties argued that the said Miss. Babita Agarwal who was the original holder of the certificates never came to the concerned Post Office personally to change her name or address. She also did not appear personally to put her signature anywhere and Postal Authority could not find the opportunity to compare her signature with the original signature kept in the record of the Post Office. Ld. Advocate of the respondent contended that the claimant could not show any valid and authenticated documents that Sangita Agarwal who happens to be the claimant is not other than Babita Agarwal prior to her marriage and for that reason the Post Office Authority could not release the claim money or maturity value of the said KVP. The respondent side of this case relied on the Appendix 2 of Postal manual where it is stipulated that if the signature of the holder of the certificates does not tally with that on record at the time of payment his signature will be get attested by a respectable person known to the Post Office or any other prescribed authorities in the following term. In this case the claimant put her signature as Babita Agarwal at the time of purchase of said KVPs and while she raised the claim of maturity value, she produced the documents of Sangita Agarwal as her new identity to prove his old identity she has produced the Ration Card which shows that earlier before marriage she got a Ration Card from Siliguri with her family in the name of Babita Agarwal and after marriage and settle at Baruipur she converted the said Ration Card from Babita Agarwal to Sangita Agarwal. Rather, she has sworn an affidavit to prove her change of name and new identity and the copy of the said affidavit was furnished on her part before the Postal Authority. No bonafide grounds are reflected to show that Postal Authority has rightly refused the claim. Moreover, in the Postal manual there is provisions to ask the claimant to put her signature afresh and to verify the said signature whether it was tallied with the earlier signature or not which are kept in the record of the Postal Authority. Rather, in such a case the claimant should have been asked to produce fresh claim application with a proper certificate and signature duly attached by a respectable person known to the Post Office or any other prescribed authorities mentioned in the Appendix 2. Rather, in the open eye it is clearly reflected that the original signature of Babita Agarwal lying in the original KVP certificates are simply tallied with the signature of Babita Agarwal inserted in the Consumer Complaint or Memo of Appeal. Rather, the affidavit which has been sworn before a Competent Authority cannot be simply thrown away. Ld. Forum has relied the judicial decisions reported in (2002) SCC 1 and also the judicial decisions reported in 2012(2) CPJ 151 that where complicated questions of facts and laws arises then such questions can be answered only by a regular Civil Court as because the Consumer Fora in excise of summary jurisdiction under the Act, 1986 cannot settle such dispute where huge question of law and fact arises. These observations are not appropriate to the decision of the Hon’ble Higher Forums as because there is no complications in this present case as because the Postal manual amply clears that when any such dispute, the present claimant’s signature to be obtained and shall to be verified with the original signatures lying in the official record of the Post Office. The Post Office did not follow the said Postal manual. Rather, the Post Office Authority had the option to ask the claimant to raise the claim for getting maturity value with a certificate to be issued by a known person of the Postal Authority or to obtain certificate from a person designated in the Appendix 2 of the Postal manual. Here enough evidences are there to show the deliberate misuse of power and latches on the part of Postal Authority. Moreover, the Post Office Authority has utilized the said accumulated funds of the KVP certificates to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- for a long period and a depositor has lost to enjoy the said funds. So, in our view, the Postal Authority has failed to discharge their obligations which has arisen after issuing the KVP certificates from taking money from the depositors. On the other hand, the Postal men also somehow misjudged due to lack of knowledge on the part of the Postal Men who were handing this claim application and for that reason the entire Postal Authority should not be penalized for the deliberate latches on the part of some Postal Officials. So, in our view, the maturity value of the said four KVPs to be immediately released in favour of the claimant after obtaining a certificate as per Column 1 of Appendix 2 of POSB manual Volume 2 with interest at the rate of 4% Per-annum (simple interest) since the date of raising claim of maturity value of the said four KVPs. The Complainant/Appellant has fought a long legal battle by rendering expenditure of litigation from her own purse and for that reason Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to be awarded in her favour. So, the appeal has got some merits and it is disposed of according to the merit of the case.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without cost. The respondents/opposite parties are asked to discharge the claim amount of the four KVP certificates to its maturity value at Rs. 80,000/-(20,000X4) with simple interest at the rate of 4% Per-annum to be calculated from the date of raising claim of the maturity value by the appellant/complainant within 45 days from the date of obtaining a fresh claim with attached certificate as per Appendix 2 of Postal manual from the complainant/appellant, failing which the Postal Authority/respondents should be compelled to pay compound interest at the rate of 6% Per-annum for noncompliance of the order till the date of full payment.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties of appeal free of cost and the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.