SRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                        The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he opened an account bearing Account No.5265414773 at Gopei Sub- Post Office under Kendrapara Head Post Office in the name of her daughter Barsa Priyadarsani Mohanty under Pradhan Mantri Sukanya Yojana. As per the scheme, the complainant is to deposit Rs.1000/- per year  for 14 years. The complainant continuously deposited for three years amounting to Rs.3000/- and on dtd.16.05.2017 the Sub-postmaster, Gopei Sub-Post office directed the complainant to deposit the pass book for verification of the account. So the complainant deposited the pass book on dtd.16.05.17 and obtained receipt from the sub-postmaster. Thereafter when the complainant approached the sub-postmaster for return of her pass book the OP avoided her with some plea or other. Ultimately, the complainant served a letter to the Superintendent of Post office, North Division, Cuttack on dtd.18.06.18 in this connection. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice on dtd.16.07.19 but no action was taken by the Authority. So, the complainant, finding no other alternative filed this case against the Ops claiming relief from the Ops. The complaint petition is supported by verification and affidavit.

2.                       On the otherhand, the Ops entered appearance and filed written version. In para-3 of the written version, the Ops admitted about opening of the account bearing No. 5265414773 opened in the name of Barsa Priyadarsani Mohanty under Sukanya Samridhi account with an initial deposit of Rs.1000/- at Gopei Sub Post office with Karilopatna S.O. on dtd.23.04.15. For correction for some discrepancy in the account the pass book was received by OP No.2 on dtd.06.12.2017. The pass book of the complainant was sent to the Kendrapara H.O. on dtd.16.11.18. Thereafter the Ops received legal notice on dtd.16.07.19. On dtd.22.07.19, it came to light on internal enquiry that the pass book was misplaced at Kendrapara H.O. after which the postmaster, Kendrapara H.O. issued a duplicate pass book on dtd.13.11.19 in order to  be sent to Gopei branch post office for delivery in the address of the complainant. Thereafter the BPM,OP No.1 approached the depositor for taking delivery of the pass book but the complainant refused to receive the pass book. It is further contended by the Ops that vide para-5 and 6 of the written version the Ops stated that for matching the online Software, the pass book was required which went missing and not traceable in the office of the OP No.2. It is further stated that after receiving the Pleader notice, duplicate pass book was immediately issued. Lastly, it is stated by the Ops that the claim of the complainant demanding Rs.8,000/- is not maintainable and it should be rejected. The written version of the Ops supported by verification.

3.                On above pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:-

                  i) whether the complainant-Petitioner is a consumer or not ?

                 ii)  whether the complainant is entitled to any relief or not ?  

4.              At the very outset it is stated that law is well settled that “Facts admitted needs no proof “.  Para-3 of the written version is self explanatory wherein the Ops admitted about the missing of the pass book of the complainant which was not traceable leading to issuance of a duplicate pass book. This admission of the Ops go to establish that the Ops are negligent and careless in providing proper service to the complainant as a result of which the complainant was not able to deposit money in the Sukanya Samridhi Account. The Ops, being the Service Provider of the Central Government should not have been so careless even though the pass book was genuinely required by them. Therefore, the entire written version is nothing but explanation of the Ops regarding their carelessness and negligence towards the complainant which amounts to absolute deficiency of service. Hence, it is ordered:-

                            That the complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Ops. The Ops are hereby directed to make the Sukanya Samridhi Account of the complainant up-to-date by depositing another Rs.2000/- and pay another Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant within a period of one month hence, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through the process of law.   

                                            Pronounced in the open Court, this the 26th day of  February,2020.