Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/302

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 302 of 22.04.2016

Date of Decision            :   19.12.2016 

Manjit Singh Sethi, Advocate 49 years, S/o Tarlok Singh r/o H.No.538, St. No.1, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Sub Post Master, New Hargobind Nagar Post Office, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana-141008.

2.Department of Post, Bhadaur House Post Office through Senior Post Master, Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          In person

For Ops                          :          Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he purchased National Saving Certificates(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘NSCs’) of worth of Rs.15000/- bearing serial No.736250 to 736252 from Op1 on 28.3.2010 on payment of Rs.15000/-. Each of these certificates were of denomination of Rs.5000/-. At the time of purchase, maturity value of Rs.8005/- per certificate was disclosed and as such, total maturity amount was mentioned as Rs.24015/-. Though, maturity date of NSCs was 27.3.2016, but those were presented on 28.3.2016 because of 27.3.2016 being Sunday. However, complainant was denied payment on ground that he should further invest the amount in certificates. On refusal by complainant to do so, the complainant    was advised to claim the cheque on next working day. Complainant again visited OP at 2:30 PM on next date, but despite receipt of cheque from OP2, the same was not delivered to the complainant by OP1. Op1 compelled complainant to invest the amount further, but on such refusal, OP1 advised the complainant to collect the cheque of Rs.24015/- on 30.3.2016. However, the complainant for avoiding quarrel lodged online complaint on 29.3.2016 with OP. Op vide reply dated 5.4.2016 disclosed that cheque for payment was ready with Op1 and complainant should visit him for collecting the same. Despite that the said amount not paid till the filing of the complaint. Even Ops have not initiated any departmental action against the erring official. As per norms of department, in case, maturity amount is less than Rs.20,000/, then the same can be paid in cash, but otherwise the amount to be paid through cheque. Ops and its officials remained negligent and deficient in rendering services to the complainant which caused mental tension and harassment and undue loss to the complainant and that is why, this complaint filed for seeking directions to Ops to pay the maturity amount of Rs.24015/- along with interest as payable on NSCs. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by Ops jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because complaint filed for extorting money from honest and diligent officers of the department. As per rules of the department, any payment exceeding Rs.20,000/- is to be made through cross cheque. On demand of complainant, the officials of Ops sent a requisition to the Head Office for preparation of cheque for paying the maturity amount of NSCs to the complainant. That requisition was sent on 28.3.2016 itself. Complainant was advised to collect the cheque on 29.3.2016, but thereafter, the complainant did not visit the office to claim the cheque, but filed this complaint for implicating the department and its officers. It is claimed that father of the complainant even tried to blackmail the department by moving false complaints, which were opposed by the department. This complaint alleged to be filed for building pressure on the department, so that illegal demands of the complainant may be accepted. Inspite of the cheque kept ready, the complainant has not accepted the same. It is claimed that department is ready to tender the cheque immediately. In view of this, it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Admittedly, the NSCs in question were purchased and date of maturity is 27.3.2016, which was Sunday. Allegations for compelling the complainant to invest the maturity amount further specifically denied. Rather, it is claimed that department and its officials acted as per the rules. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that no official acted wrongly or maliciously or negligently.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Smt.Balbir Kaur, Sub Post Master in office of OP1 tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.RA along with documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

6.                Undisputedly, three NSCs of worth of Rs.15,000/- with maturity date 27.3.2016 were purchased by the complainant from Ops on 28.3.2010, but 27.3.2016 was Sunday and that is why, complainant contacted Op1 on 28.3.2016. Document Ex.R1 establishes that advice by OP1 to the head office was sent on 28.3.2016 with respect to the NSCs in question, so that maturity amount of Rs.24015/- may be disbursed to the complainant. In view of contents of Ex.R1, it is obvious that OP1 sent requisition to head office immediately for refund of the maturity amount of NSCs to the complainant. In pursuance of this requisition Ex.R1, cheque of amount of Rs.24015/- of 29.3.2016 was prepared as revealed by contents of Ex.R2. Bone of contention remains as to whether fault lay with the complainant in not collecting this amount on 30.3.2016 or with Ops in not disbursing this amount to the complainant?

7.                Perusal of Ex.C1 reveals that cheque of Rs.24015/- of maturity amount of NSCs was sent by the head office to the concerned Post office, but the Post Master refused to deliver by claiming as if complainant should invest the amount further. Ex.C1 is complaint lodged by the complainant in this respect. That complaint was closed on 5.4.2016 as per status endorsed on Ex.C1 itself. Certainly, the amount of maturity liable to be paid by Ops to the complainant on date of maturity itself. If complainant has not contacted Ops after receipt of cheque Ex.R2 dated 29.3.2016, then it was the responsibility of Ops to send the cheque to the complainant at his residential address either through Postman or through registered post. That is not shown to be done and as such, even if cheque Ex.R2 may have become available with OP1 on 30.3.2016, despite that due delivery of the same not shown to be made by the Ops to the complainant by sending intimation in writing even in that respect and as such, deficiency in service on the part of Ops is to this extent.

8.                Through written statement filed by Ops on 8.7.2016 willingness expressed to tender the cheque immediately, but despite that the complainant did not apply for getting that cheque. That cheque of Rs.24015/- bearing No.442305 with revalidation date of 01.10.2016 was received by complainant in this Forum only on 15.11.2016 on being presented by Ops. So, fault also lay with complainant to this extent in not accepting the cheque at earliest after expression of readiness to tender the same through written statement dated 8.7.2016. After filing of written statement on 8.7.2016, case was posted for evidence of complainant for 8.8.2016, but even by that date, complainant did not opt for accepting the cheque in question. So, keeping in  view these facts delay on part of Ops in not tendering the cheque at earliest can be inferred from 29.3.2016 to 29.7.2016 at the most because by 29.7.2016, complainant must have been aware about readiness by Ops to tender the cheque in view of the offer submitted through written statement. On NSCs interest @7% usually is paid and as such, annual interest on maturity amount of Rs.24015/- can be said to be Rs.1680/-. However, by keeping in view the fact that delay in tendering the amount took place for 4 months at the most, complainant allowed compensation interest of Rs.560/-. Meager compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses required in view of the fact that Ops offered at the earliest to tender the maturity amount through cheque.

9.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will pay Rs.560/- on account of interest for delayed payment for period from 29.03.2016 to 29.07.2016. Further compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts be made by Ops to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability of both Ops held as joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                         (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:19.12.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.