Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that the complainant is a widow pensioner vide P.P.O. No. TA/CTD/P-1548/P.P. No. 809(83-84) and she is a savings account holder of post office maintained at Ariadaha sub-post office, Kol. 57 under the head post office Belghoria vide account no. 917825443 and there from she firstly started to draw her pension and before implementation of C.B.S system she used to draw her pension from above mentioned sub post office and now at the age of 81 years she used to draw her pension by her son and according to the rules of the Government of India she submitted her “life certificate” at the said sub post office at the month of November, 2016 and in the month of June 2017 opposite party deliberately and illegally refused to disburse pension to her son and said that the pension holder should appear physically to draw her pension for the said month though as per Rule 137 of sub-rule (15) of F.H.B. Vol-II it is optional to the pensioner and thereafter the complainant submit her “life certificate” through her son and they accepted the same and draw her pension there from and it is very difficult to the complainant as well as her son to attend every month to draw pension as her son is an administrative employee of Wellington Jute Mill and after June 2017 opposite parties illegally, negligently refused to give said service and opposite party no. 2 misbehave with her son and refused to disburse pension and on 26.09.2017 again her son came to the office of the opposite parties and requested to allow him to withdraw pension but opposite parties do not pay any heed for the same and the cause of action arose on 30.06.2017 when the complainant as well as her son draw pension from the opposite parties and on 26.03.2017 when the opposite parties refused to disburse pension of the complainant through her son and same thereafter continued day by day.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to rectify aforesaid illegalities to disburse pension of the complainant as well as to the opposite parties and to allow the complainant to draw her pension through her son and to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- for damages and for mental agony and physical suffering and to pass such other orders as may deem fit and proper.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them. These opposite parties submit that the complainant is a pension holder vide P.P.O. No. TA/CTD/P-1548/P.P. No. 809(83-84) and drawing her pension from Ariadaha sub-post office, under the head post office Belghoria and subsequently the complainant started to draw her pension from Rishra Post Office through her son and on 6.12.2016 the complainant submitted life certificate through her son to Rishra P.O. and then her son disburse pension till the month of May 2017 and as per Rule 137 of sub-rule (15) of F.H.B. Vol-11 and P.O. Savings Bank Manual (vol. 1) a pensioner has to appear in person at least once a year either in June or December before concerned post master and in addition send a life certificate duly attested by any authorized but the complainant fails either to appear in person or send the life certificate and then on 6.12.2016 the complainant submitted life certificate through her son but the complainant did not appear in person in June 2017 and thus the complainant has not abided by the rules and as such pension could not be disbursed and thus, the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant here in is a consumer of the opposite parties.
- Both the complainant and the opposite party are residence/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs. 20,00,000/- i.e. limit of this Forum. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The case of the complainant is that she is a widow pensioner vide PPO no. TA/CTD/P/1548/PP No. 809 and her husband, Basanta Kumar Banerjee was an ex employee of Calcutta Telephone and he died on 11.12.2012 and since then the complainant used to reside at Arihadaha SPO and that she had a SB account at Arihadaha post office being no. 91782543 and she started to draw her pension from there. She also stated that she started to draw her pension from there and till implementation of CBS system she used to draw her pension from the said sub post office. Complainant also asserted that the settled rule of Govt. of India at present is that every pension holder should submit life certificate in the month of November of each and every year and according to the said rule she submitted her life certificate at Ariadaha Post Office and op no. 1 is the nearest post office of the complainant in the month of November, 2016. But in the month of June, 2017 the opposite party deliberately and illegally refused to disburse her pension to her messenger and ordered him to physically present her to draw pension for the said month though as per Rule 137 of sub Rule of F.H.B. volume ii it is optional to the petitioner. She also submitted life certificate through her messenger at Ariadaha and they accepted the same and she drew her pension from there, but the opposite parties intentionally and illegally refused the same as such the opposite parties are liable for breach of contract and breach of duty as they have not complied with the rules of postal department and have acted extremely negligently as such they are liable to compensate the complainant for harassment, troubles, mental agony, loss and injury.
The opposite parties denied the allegations leveled against them and averred that as per F.H.B. Volume ii Rule 137 sub Rule 15 as per P.O. Savings bank manual (Volume i) a pensioner has to appear in person at least once in a year either in June or December before Post master concern and in addition send a life certificate duly attested once a year in June or December. If the pensioner has appeared in person in June, he/she will then send a life certificate in December and vice versa. In case the pensioner fails either to appear in person or send the life certificate the pension will not be automatically credited to his/her account unless the conditions laid down in sub Rule 15 are fulfilled by the petitioner. As per post office savings bank manual volume i appendix 11 R10(i) the fact of physical presence/ personal appearance of the petitioner in June or December in a year should be noted by disbursing officer in the remarks column of the PPO under his dated signature. In the instant case the complainant used to draw pension from Ariadaha sub post office under Belgharia Head office but subsequently he started to draw pension from Rishra Post office through savings bank account messenger namely, Manish Banerjee (her son) and she submitted life certificate through messenger on 6.2.2016 to Rishra post office that on the strength of the life certificate pension was disbursed to the messenger till the month of May, 2017. The complainant had to appear in person before the post master concern in June, 2017 positively/ compulsorily, but she did not appear and that her son was requested to bring the pensioner, complainant in person before the post master for disbursement of her pension, but the messenger did not present her since then. As the complainant failed to abide by the rules so her pension could not be disbursed. As such there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
It appears from the post office savings bank manual volume i, page 340 Section 10 under the heading appearance of pensioner and furnishing of life certificate, (i) the pensioner will appear in person at least one a year either in June or December before the post master concerned and in addition send a life certificate (duly attested by any one authorized for this) once a year in June or December and vice versa. The pensioner will also send a non-employment certificate in Form at Annexure-C once a year in the month of November each year. In case the pensioner fails either to appear in person or send life and non-employment certificate, the pension will not be automatically credited to his account. Provided that if the pensioner appears before the disbursing officer both in the months of June and December he need not produce his life certificate. In such cases the disbursing officer will made a remark in the pension schedule indicating the fact of personal appearance in both the months. The fact of personal appearance in June and December should also be noted by the disbursing officer in the remarks column of the PPO under his dated signature. Section 11 also speaks that the post master/ sub post master will not credit the amount of pension in the savings account of the pensioner unless the conditions laid down in para 10 are fulfilled by the pensioners. The post master concerned will send an intimation at once to the pensioner regarding the particular deficiency which has resulted in the stoppage of automatic credit. If the pensioner does not furnish the life certificate in the month of June or December, as the case may be the post master/ sub post master will make enquires about the whereabouts of the pensioner at the address available in the post office record. In case it is found that the pensioner has expired, the date of death will be got ascertained and noted in the PPO under the initials of the post master/ sub post master, further credit of the pension to the savings account will be stopped.
The letter dated 21.07.2017 of senior superintendant of post office, South Hooghly division, Serampore speaks that as per Rule 137 of Sub rule (15) of F.H.B. vol.-II a pensioner /family pensioner used to draw his/ her pension from the post office S/B account. Then he/ she will appear in person at least once in a year either in June or December before the post master concern and in addition send a life certificate (duly attested by anyone authorized for this) once a year in June or December. If he/she has appeared in person in June, he/ she will send the life certificate in December and vice versa. In case the pensioner fails either to appear in person or send the life certificate, the pension will not be automatically credited to his/ her post office S/B account.
Upon a careful consideration the opposite parties prior to filing this complaint petition informed the complainant/ petitioner regarding the rule of postal department in respect of pension/ family pension. But the complainant after getting all informations failed to comply the rule of postal department as a result she could not get the pension on and after 2017. So, it is crystal clear from the case record that the allegation leveled against the opposite parties has no leg to stand as such the complaint petition is deserved to be dismissed. The opposite parties are no way deficient in providing service to the complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no. 26 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
The opposite parties are exonerated from the case.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
