Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/370

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Inderjit Singh Adv.

18 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 370 dated 23.12.2020                         

                               Date of decision: 18.08.2023  

Om Parkash Arora aged about 78 years, son of Sh.Uttam Chand resident of 114-1, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Post Office, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana through its Sub Postmaster.

2.The Senior Superintendent, Post Offices, Head Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

  Complaint under section of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         None for the complainant

For OPs                         :         Sh.Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           The complainant (now deceased) has filed the present complaint and invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and raised a consumer dispute with regard to illegally deducting the amount of Rs.11,550/- by the OPs out of the total deposited amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards the monthly income scheme. So, by filing the present complaint, complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.5550/- along with interest @18% per annum with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs was duly appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement whereby they took the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs in the present form as the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Union of India. The Post Office, Sarabha Nagar is not a necessary party. The answering OPs are bound to act as per the statutory provisions of law, rules and regulations to the Department of Posts. The Saving Bank Accounts and Certificates are governed by the Government Saving Banks Act, 1873 and the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1959. As per point no.9 of the Rule 123 of the MIS under POSB CBS Manual, it is clearly mentioned that the excess share amount of the joint depositor in the MIS Accounts, after the death of the one of the joint account holders will carry interest at the post office saving bank account from the date of death of the joint depositor. In the present case, no interest was given by the system(FINACLE) after withdrawing the excess share from the account. The sanction for the payment of the interest at the rate of the post office saving bank accounts from the date of death of the joint depositor upto the date of withdrawing the excess share from the accounts was given to the OP1 vide letter dated 10.11.2020 in response to the complainant’s letter dated 4.11.2020 forwarded by OP1 vide letter No.501 dated 4.11.2020. On merits, the answering OPs have submitted that they have paid the amount to the complainant as per the statutory rules and regulations of the Department of Posts as already mentioned above.  The rest of the averments made in the complaint are denied being wrong and in the end, answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                Both the parties have adduced their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

4.                During the pendency of the proceedings on 16.05.2023, counsel for the complainant had stated at bar that the complainant has since expired and he wants to produce the death certificate of the complainant. Thereafter, counsel for the complainant availed number of opportunities but till today, neither he produced the death certificate of complainant nor filed any application for impleading the legal heirs certificate of the complainant.

5.                Order XXII(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the procedures and consequences in case the legal heirs of the deceased are not impleaded. Further, Articles 120 of The Limitation Act, 1963 provides the limitation of 90 days for brining the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or appellant on record from the date of death. In the present case, the death of the complainant has taken place before 16.05.2023 but till today, nobody has appeared on behalf of the complainant nor moved the application for impleading the legal heirs of complainant by the counsel for the complainant or on behalf of any of the opposite parties. Needless to say that the OPs have notice of death of the complainant. Statutory period of 90 days have already elapsed. As such, proceedings in the present complaint stands abated and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                              (Jaswinder Singh)             (Sanjeev Batra)

                             Member                              President        

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:18.08.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma