IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /120/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
17.07.18 30.07.18 05.08.19
Complainant: Bakul Pan,w/o Sri Kumar Krishna Pan,
Vill. Gopegram,
P.O.&P.S. Prosadpur,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742401.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Post Master,Salar Sub Post Office,
Village+ P.O + P.S. Salar,
Dist. Murshidabad.
Pin 742401.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Smt. Monalisa Dutta Thakur
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri S.S. Dhar (G.P).
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………………..President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Asish Kumar Senapati , President
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Bakul Sen (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has filed the case against the Post master, Salar Sub Post Office (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.)praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The gist of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant had a Kissan Vikash Patra and matured amount of Rs.66,633.90 was duly incorporated in her manual pass book of Savings Account No 6109682837 and balance was Rs.1,58,638.95 as on 10.08.17. But the computerized pass book showed her balance as Rs. 92,005.05 as on 10.08.17. The complainant knocked the door of the O.P. but of no result.
Hence, the complainant has filed the case praying for a direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs. .66,633.90 and compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.
The O.P. contested the case by filing W.V. on 10.01.19 contending that the case is not maintainable. It is the case of the O.P. that after detection of the short balance of Rs.68,678.10 had been credited in the account of the complainant on 17.09.18. The O.P. has no deficiency in service. The O.P. has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
3. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as she hired the services of the O.p. for consideration..
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has stated nothing on this point.
On perusal of the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents filed by the complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired the services of the OP.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer as she hired the services of the O.p. for consideration..
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has stated nothing on this point.
On going through the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents, we find that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point No.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the O.P. credited an amount of Rs.68,678.10 on 17.09.18 in the account of the complainant after filing of this case. It is contended that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental pain and agony as the maturity amount could not be utilized by the complainant for a period of about one year due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
In reply,the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the O.P. credited the maturity amount with interest on 17.09.18 in the account of the complainant after detection of mistake and the mistake was due to migration error from sanchay post system to C.B.S. system. It is urged that the O.P. has no deficiency in service.
Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and xerox copies of documents. We have also considered the submission of both sides. Admittedly, the O.P. credited the matured amount with interest on 17.09.18 after a perid of about one year from the date of maturity. It is the case of the O.P. that the mistake was due to migration error from sanchay post system to C.B.S. system. The fact remains that the complainant could not utilized the maturity amount of Rs.66,633.90 from 10.08.17 to 16.09.18. The O.P. took about one year to detect the mistake in their system. Considering the facts and circumstances, we think that the O.P. has deficiency in service for withholding the amount for a peripd of about one year. We are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost from the O.P.
Both the points are thus disposed of.
Reasons for Delay :
The case was filed on 17.07.18 and admitted on 30.07.18. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of provision U/s 14(3A) of the C. P. Act, 1986. The delay is mainly due to lack of Quorum. The reasons for delay has also been reflected in day to day orders.
In the result, Consumer Complaint No. 120/2018 succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 120/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- .
The OP is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order. The OP shall comply the order by 60 days from the date of this order, in default, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. till realization to the Complainant.
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
