Facts of the complaint are, in brief, that the complainant is a savings Bank a/c holder with OP No.2 bearing No. 851560.  The complainant deposited on 19.12.2013 a cheque No. 099408 dtd. 12.12.2013, amounting to Rs. 7082/- (Seven thousand eighty two rupees) only to the OP No.2 for crediting to his a/c. But  the amount was not credited to his a/c.  He persuaded the matter with the OP No. 2 who told the complainant that the cheque had been sent to Siliguri Head Post Office for processing and it had not come back therefrom, which is why it was taking time.

The complainant took up the matter with Siliguri Head Post Office, at his own interest, who was told that the cheque was under process and it would soon be sent back to Vivekanandapally sub-post office, i.e., OP No. 2.  After having waited for some reasonable period, the complainant again went to OP No.2 who, could not, however, give any assurance when the deposited cheque would be credited to his S.B. a/c maintained with OP. No. 2.

Being despaired, the complainant wrote a letter to the OP No.1 Post-master General of North Bengal & Sikkim.  The OP No.1 asked the Superintendent of Post Offices, of Darjeeling Division to enquire into the matter and settle the case, vide No. SB/2-2/DE/MISC/12-13 dtd. 18.06.2015, with copy both to the Post-master of Siliguri Head Post office and the complainant.  The

Contd…..P/2.

-:2:-

Superintendent of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division, in turn assured the complainant vide his No. CPT/Public Complaints/ corr.-II dtd. 23.07.2015 that an enquiry had been initiated and the grievance would be resolved as early as possible.

The complainant resorted to pre-litigation mediation also.  The Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Siliguri, on being approached by the complainant, issued notice for a tripartite settlement on 05.06.2015.  But the Pos-master of Head Post Office did not attend.  The Assistant Director of C.A. & FBP, Siliguri Regional Office sent a reminder notice No. 445/C & F/Slg. R.O. dtd. 18.06.2015 with a request to attend all concerned for amicable solution on 30.06.2015.  This time also the Post-Master of Siliguri Head Post Office absented from the said meeting without any information.

Repeated attempts of the complainant did not bear fruit. Hence the complainant filed this case on 17.08.2016 praying as relief for immediate credit of the deposited cheque and such other relieves as the Forum deem fit.

OP No.2 contested the case by filing written version dtd. 01.06.2017 wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended, inter alia, that the complainant did not disclose the cause of action and the case is barred by limitation.  The OP No. 2 further argued that there was defect in the form and the complainant was verbally asked to rectify the defect in the form filled up by him but the complainant did not turn up.  Therefore, the complainant has not come to the Forum with a clean hand.  The complainant did not rectify the defect and the cheque by the time went beyond the presentation period and as per Departmental Rules, OPs are not liable to pay.

The complainant, is his evidence, however, denied the contention of the OP No.2 that he was asked verbally to rectify any defect in the form.  He, rather, argues that no communication either verbally or in writing was ever done from the side of the OP No.2.  What is told by the OP No.2 in his written version is baseless.

The OP No.2 laid their evidence on 30.08.2017 and the Forum was requested to treat the written version as a part of examination-in-chief.  It was contended that the complainant could give no specific reply to their written version and hence his evidence is nothing but a lie and the complainant should be supposed to have suppressed actual fact.

The OP No.1, i.e., Post-Master General, North Bengal & Sikkim, at Siliguri did not contest the case.   No. written version was filed by the OP No.1 within the statutory period and hence the case proceeded ex-parte against OP No.1 on and from 16.03.2017.                                                                                   Contd…..P/3.

-:3:-

The complainant has, to prove his case, filed the following documents:-

1. Counterfoil of deposit slip form duly sealed by the OP No.2 and acknowledged on 20.12.2013.
2. Letter NO. S.B/2-2/D.E./MISC/12-13 dtd. 18.06.2015 of the Assistant Superintendent (Public Grievance) o/o.-P.M.G. North Bengal & Sikkim at Siliguri, to the supdt. of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division.
3. NO. CPT/Public Complaints/Corr. II dtd. 23.07.2015 of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division, addressed to the complainant.

On the basis of respective submission of the parties, the following points come up for determination:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 and Siliguri Head Post Office as well as OP No.1?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to have the cheque amount credited to the S.B. a/c maintained with OP No. 2?

DECISION WITH REASONS.

The 02(two) points are taken up in seriatim for discussion:-

Point No.1

Both in the written version as well as in the written notes on arguments, the OP No.2 avers that the complainant has not disclosed the cause of action and also that the instant case is barred by limitation.  The period of limitation of 02 years as prescribed u/s 24A of the C.P. Act. is counted from the date of occurrence of cause of action.  If the OP No.2 is not in the know of case of action, how he avers that the case is barred by limitation? The OP No.2 contend that he asked the complainant to rectify the defect in the form filled up by the complainant but the complainant did not do so. But the OP No.2 did not specify what exact defect -either in name or in date or in otherwise like a/c No-was there in the form plus why it was not got rectified by the complainant at the counter itself.  The OP No. 2 further argue that the complainant did not rectify and by the time the cheque went beyond presentation period and hence as per rules of the Department OPs are not liable to credit the cheque.  This argument, is, however, not acceptable at all because it is not believable that the concerned postal staff do not know the validity period (90 days in all cases)  of a given cheque as well as because the OP NO. 2 has not furnished any copy of the said Departmental Rules nor has mentioned, at least, its No. & date.

Contd…..P/4.

-:4:-

In the letter No. SB/2-2/DE/misc/12-13 dtd. 18.06.2018 of the Astt. Supdt. (Pub. Griev.) O/O-P.M.G, North Bengal & Sikkim addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division,  it is written that…‘as reported by the sub-Post-Master of Vivekandapally Sub-Post-Office, cheque was sent to Siliguri Head Post office for clearance but the same has not yet been received back till date’.  It palpable that the fault lies with Siliguri Head Post Office.  The Post-Master of Siliguri Head Post Office confirms the fault by not taking twice the opportunity of self-defence in a tripartite discussion arranged by the Assistant Director of CA & FBP, Siliguri Regional Office.  The Post-Master of Siliguri Head Post office absented from the meeting to be held on 05.06.2015 and 30.06.2015 and even without any information.

The OP No.1 against whom the case proceeds ex-parte, did not fix any personal responsibility in the Siliguri Head Post Office even after receiving reports from the sub-Post-Master of Vivekandapally Sub-Post Office.  Nor did he take any action for non-compliance with his order to settle the case.  The superintendent of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division miserably failed to keep his commitment given to the complainant vide his No. CPT/Pub,Complt./Corr-II dtd. 23.07.2015.  The complainant had to come to the Forum due to the failure of superintendent of Post Offices, Darjeeling Division, to comply with the order of the post-master General of North Bengal & Sikkim at Siliguri.  Such failure also was not put to departmental proceeding or under show-cause notice at least.

Thus the point No. 1 is answered in the positive against the OPs.

Pints No. 2.

The complainant has submitted counterfoil of deposit slip dtd. 19.12.2013 showing an amount of Rs. 7082/-.  However, it is found to be sealed by the OP No.2 and acknowledged on the next day, i.e., 20.12.2013. Duly acceptance of the deposit slip, particularly after having 24 hrs.  time, by OP No. 2 proves how unsubstantial the argument of complainant’s wrong form-fill-up is.  The argument of expiry of validity period or the cheque (up to 11.03.2014) also is not acceptable in as much as the cheque has been lying with the Postal Department for processing since the date of deposit.  The depositor-complainant can nohow be held responsible for the intra-departmental processing delay.  The taking of as many as almost 06 (six) years for crediting a cheque into S.B. a/c of an a/c holder/customer like a complainant admits of no explanation. Such a delay is standing in the way of reputation of the Department.

Contd…..P/5.

-:5:-

Thus the point No. 2 is answered in the positive in favour of the complainant.

Considering all the aspects, this Forum is of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which the complainant should not have suffered for so long period.  In the result, the case succeed on contest and hence it is,

O R D E R E D

that the consumer case being No. 92/S/2016 be and same is allowed on contest against the OP No.2 and ex-parte against OP No. 1.

The OP No.1 and the OP No. 2 shall, either jointly or severally, cause to credit/credit, as the case may be, the cheque amount to be S.B. a/c of the complainant maintained with OP No.2 along with the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit to that of such credit, within period of 45 days from the date of this order.  The OPs shall also liable to pay interest @ 9 % from the 46^th day on the total amount equal to the cheque amount plus the amount towards 8% interest, so Calculated.  The Govt. of India in the Department of Posts will, however, be at liberty to realize the entire amount of interest from the concerned employee found on enquiry to be responsible to harm the reputation of the Department. Institution of such enquiry and fixing personal responsibility shall, however, be optional on the part of the authority concerned.  The Ops shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand rupees) only to the complainant for causing his unnecessary harassment and mental agony. There will be no other cost.

The case is thus disposed of.  In case of default on the part of the OPs, the complainant shall be at liberty to put this case into execution.

Let a free copy of this order be served on all concerned.