DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.317 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 30.5.2013
DATE OF ORDER: - 09.10.2015
Smt. Chanderpati wife of Shri Ishwar Dass, resident of near Sewa Samiti Hira Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Superintendent of Post Office, Bhiwani Division, Bhiwani.
- The Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office, City Charkhi Dadri.
- Ms. Ritu Dalal, Dealing Hand, Sub Post Office, City Charkhi Dadri.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri S.K.Hans, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, Inspector for Ops no. 1 & 2.
None for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that she is having an account bearing No.251242 in Sub Post Office City Charkhi Dadri and used to deposit and withdrawn the amount in his above said account on several occasions. It is alleged that the Ops have issued new pass book and while presuming the entries of old pass book as well as new pass book by her husband Shri Ishwar Singh it was found that Rs.1882/- being the last entry amounting to Rs.30,000/- which were deposited on 24.9.2009 was not added in the balance column. The complainant alleged that she along with her husband requested OP No.3 to rectify the entries by adding the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- but instead of doing the needful she (OP No.3) misbehaved. The complainant further alleged that she made a complaint to Ops No.1 & 2 to rectify the entry in the pass book but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such she had to file the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that no such amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited on 24.9.2009 by the complainant in her account No.251242 nor any entry of the above said amount was made in her pass book. It is submitted that the entry made on 17.9.2009/24.9.2009 was of a cheque No.350700 for a sum of Rs.20632/-, so the claim made by the complainant is wrong and she has concealed this fact deliberately. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure “A” Photostat copy of pass book, Annexure “B” Photostat copy of letter dated 31.5.2012, Annexure “C” Photostat copy of Postal Receipt, Annexure “D” Photostat copy of letter dated 17.4.2012, Annexure “E” Photostat copy of Order dated 12.7.2004, Annexure “F” Photostat copy of letter dated 17.04.2012, Annexure “G” Photostat copy of letter dated 15.11.2012, Annexure “H” Photostat copy of Marriage Card, Annexure “I” Photo stat copy of letter dated 1.10.2010, Annexure I & II statement of account and Photostat copy of Pass book along with affidavit dated 22.5.2013.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit dated 5.4.2014 of Shri S.R. Sharma, Superintendent, Post Office, Bhiwani.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for complainant and authorized representative for Ops no. 1 & 2.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the Ops are liable to make the entry of Rs. 30,000/- in the pass book of the complainant.
7. The Authorized Representative for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that the complainant deposited the cheque number 350700 for Rs. 20632/- as such the said entries dated 17.09.2009/24.09.2009 pertains to Rs. 20632/- and cheque number. He further submitted that no counterfoil of having deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 24.09.2009 has been produced by the complainant. He further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred because the present complaint has been filed on 30.05.2013.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The dispute raised by the complainant relates to the entry dated 24.09.2009, and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 30.05.2013, after about 3 years and 8 months from the date of cause of action. The Section 24 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under:-
“The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen”.
In view of the said provision of law the complainant should have file the complaint within 2 years from the date of cause of action i.e. 24.09.2009, but the complainant has filed the present complaint on 30.05.2013 much after the prescribed period of limitation. We hold that the complaint of the complainant is time barred.
9. However, we proceed to decide this complaint of the complainant on merits also. The complainant has produced the photo copy of the letters dated 31.05.2012 Annexure B, 17.04.2012 Annexure C, 15.11.2012 Annexure G and 01.10.2010 Annexure I. From the perusal of said copies of letters it is revealed that no single word has been mentioned in the said letters by the complainant about the alleged entry dated 24.09.2009. It means that no complaint has been made by the complainant regarding the said entry to the post office authorities. The authorized representative of the Ops no. 1 & 2 submitted that the complainant is getting completed the pass book time to time from the post office, but she never challenged any entry. He submitted that the fresh pass book was issued to the complainant on 07.07.2010 carrying the balance of this pass book to new pass book but the complainant never raised any dispute about the alleged entry.
10. From the above discussion, we come to this conclusion that if the said entry would have been of the amount of deposit of Rs. 30,000/- as also mentioned in the pass book Annexure A, instead of cheque number then the said amount must have been added in the balance column of the pass book. No counterfoil has been produced by the complainant reflecting the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- on 24.09.2009 as alleged by the complainant. From the perusal of photo copy of pass book Annexure A it is evident that the complainant is regularly operating her account by depositing and withdrawing the amounts in her account. No material has come on record to show that the complainant ever raised this issue before the higher authorities of post office. The complainant has raised the issue about the behavior of Ms. Ritu Dalal Dealing Hand posted in Sub Post Office City, Charkhi Dadri, who is also arrayed as OP no. 3. No reply has been filed on behalf of OP no. 3 and she is not represented by any person in this case. It seems that the complainant has grievances against the behaviour of said Ritu Dalal and as such this complaint has been filed by her. In the public interest at large we would like to direct the OP no. 3 to have good bahaviour towards the customers/public coming to the post office. We also direct Ops no. 1 and 2 to take suitable action on the complaints of the complainant regarding the bahaviour of Ms. Ritu Dalal.
11. With this observations, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 09.10.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
