District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/36/2019
(Date of Filing:-13.09.2019)
- Sri Shibnath Paul
- Smt. Monimala Paul,
both residing at Sripur,
P.O. Sripur Bajar, P.S. Balagarh
District:- Hooghly, Pin: 712514. ………..Complainants
-Versus
- Post Master, Sripur Bajar Post Office
P.O. Sripur Bajar, P.S. Balagarh,
Dist:- Hooghly, Pin-712514.
- Post Master, Head Post Office, Chuchura Post Office
P.O. Chuchura, District:- Hooghly, Pin:-712101
…….Opposite parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Mrs. Babita Chaudhuri, Member
PRESENT:
Dtd. 19.01.2024
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the refusal of the opposite parties to turn back the purported Term Deposit of Rs.7,60,000/- with the accumulated interest, when approached for pre-mature withdrawal, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In the instant case both the Opposite Parties belong to the same organization i.e. the postal authority.
The fact of the case as depicted in the Complaint petition is that the Complainants on 21.03.2017 opened a Term Deposit account with OP 1 jointly and the corresponding account no. was 3578845444.
Reportedly, subsequent to depositing of the amount, the Complainants met the Post Master of the Sripur Bajar P.O. several times but the said authority in spite of repeated visits of the Complainants, could not give any ‘satisfactory reply’ when asked regarding the said account. However the Complainants claim to have sent written communications to the said Post Master on 05.12.2018, 22.12.2018, and 21.05.2019, enquiring about the whereabouts of the said TD A/C but the said authority remained unresponsive.
Pursuant to that, the Complainants on 13.08.2019 sent a legal notice to the OPs but no reply was received by the Complainant from the OP’s end.
Having been utterly disappointed by the allegedly indifferent attitude of the Postal Authority the Complainant approaches to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP to turn back the principal amount of Rs.7,60,000/- along with the applicable interest, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing ‘financial problem’, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay further Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the complaint petition.
The Complainant along with the complaint petition has annexed copies of certain relevant documents viz. photocopies of letters written to the concerned Post Master dtd. 05.12.2018, 22.12.2018, and 21.05.2019, purported first page of the pass book, another page of the pass book where the entry of the investment has been made, legal notice sent to the OP and postal acknowledgement of the OP postal authority.
Besides, on the date of delivery of judgment the Complainant has submitted photocopies of certain pages of a purported old Post Office passbook reflecting certain deposits. However it is not clarified in specific terms that how this old pass book is related to the instant case.
The Complainant’s declared residential address is within the district of Hooghly.
The office address of the OP 1 and OP 2 are also within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issues, whether there was any deficiency of service on the OPs’ part and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief, being mutually interrelated, will be taken together for the sake of convenience.
The OP Postal authority contested the case by filing their written version, evidence on affidavit, brief notes of argument and certain corroborating documents viz. photocopies of relevant pages of Sub-office daily account, counter wise list of transactions report-TD of Sripur Bazar SPO dtd.21.03.2017 and ‘Transaction enquiry’ in Finacle, a digital Banking platform, in respect of the said TD.
However, in course of hearing of the case, there was exchange of interrogatories and corresponding replies by both the sides.
Defence case:- The OP Postal authority in their representations submitted at different points of time viz. written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument, denied all the allegations leveled against them by the Complainant.
The OP Postal authority while defending their points, explains that on receipt of the application for premature withdrawal of the TD from the Complainants a search was made and finding no document and record the matter was investigated by an enquiry team. It is further explained that on being asked, the complainant did not hand over the original pass book. Resultantly the authenticity and genuineness of the pass book could not be verified.
However, the records maintained in the office of the OP 1 did not show such deposit claimed to have been made by the Complainant. Allegedly the Complainant failed to produce the initial deposit slip also.
As the original pass book was not handed over to the postal authority the date, stamp and signature of the concerned authority in the purported pass book also could not be verified.
The OP points out that on examination of the photocopy of the pass book produced by the Complainant, it was found that the front page of the purported pass book where the depositors’ particulars were noted was devoid of date, stamp impression, signature and seal of the concerned postal authority.
The OP postal authority claims that the pass book referred to by the Complainant is fake, fabricated and forged.
Decision with reasons:
Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents filed by the complainant as well as the counterarguments and documents presented by the OPs are perused.
So far as the documents produced by both the sides are concerned, it is apparent that, firstly the deposit claimed by the Complainant had no reflection in the records of the Post Office and secondly the first page of the purported pass book in which the particulars of the depositors are incorporated is not authenticated. Thus the sanctity of the pass book becomes questionable.
It is nowhere clarified by the Complainants that for what specific reason, they, after opening the TD A/C went to the concerned Post Office repeatedly to enquire about the TD and sent communications thrice to the Post Office.
Besides, the Complainant nowhere in the complaint petition has disclosed the specific mode through which the initial deposit was made. The corresponding counterfoil of the pay-in-slip through which the initial deposit was made could not be produced by the Complainant either. In the interrogatories filed by the OP the Complainant was asked to give details of the cheque/transfer through which the TD A/C was opened.
In reply, the Complainant stated that the deposit was made by transfer of Rs.7,60,000/- out of an old deposit. But no elaborate details of the so called transfer could be furnished. Thus the veracity of the initial deposit itself becomes questionable.
The Complainant’s plea that no counterfoil was given by the OP Postal authority at the time of making the initial deposit cannot be appreciated.
Surprisingly, in the complaint petition the petitioner claims that the TD A/C was opened on 21.03.2017 and in the reply to the interrogatories of the OP the petitioner states that on 21.03.2017 itself they applied for premature closure of the TD A/C.
In view of the above, the Commission is of the opinion that the statements made by the Complainant, not only suffers from inconsistencies but also devoid of credibility. The documents produced by the OP Postal authority clearly indicates that at the material point of time there was no such opening of any TD A/C as claimed by the Complainant.
The Commission thus cannot be inclined to opine that there was any deficiency of service or any mala fide intention on the postal authority’s part.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case bearing no.CC/136/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in
