Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/274

Tarlok Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

01 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA

 

Consumer Complaint No.274 of 05.04.2016

Date of Decision        :   01.09.2016

 

Tarlok Singh Sethi aged 79 years s/o Late Rawail Singh r/o H.No.538, St.No.1, Harcharan Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

 

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

2.Department of Post, head post office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through SSP.

3.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.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                     :       Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                        :        Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, a 79 years old senior citizen, purchased National Saving Certificates(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘NSCs’) of Rs.50,000/- bearing Sr.No.736282 to 736291 of worth of Rs.5000/- each from OP1 on 26.3.2010. Cheque bearing No.707994 drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce was issued in the name of OP3, which was encashed on 26.3.2010. At the time of purchase of NSCs, it was disclosed to the complainant that maturity amount of these NSC will be Rs.80,050/- and as such, total due amount payable to the complainant on maturity will be Rs.80,050/-. These NSC’s were presented to OP1 on its maturity on 25.3.2016, but the payment was denied on the ground that further investment with Ops required. That offer was not accepted by the complainant due to urgent need. As per the advise of OP1, complainant again re-presented the NSCs for payment on 26.3.2016. but its payment was again denied on the same ground for calling upon the complainant to further invest the amount. On denial of such re-investment, complainant was advised to collect the cheque on next working day i.e.28.3.2016. When the complainant visited Op1 again on 28.3.16 for collection of the cheque amount of Rs.80,050/-, then the same was refused to be delivered for compelling the complainant to invest the amount again. With this advise, the complainant was called upon to collect the cheque on 29.3.2016, but again on 29.3.2016, the maturity cheque was denied to be handed over to the complainant. Complainant lodged online complaint on 29.3.2016 with Ops, but despite that OPs failed to take any immediate action against the erring officials. By pleading negligence on the part of officials of OPs and deficiency in service, directions sought against OPs to deliver the maturity cheque amount of Rs.80,050/-. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- more claimed by the complainant.

2.                In the written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complaint is filed with malafide intention for blackmailing the honest and diligent officers of the department. It is admitted that NSCs in question were purchased by the complainant. However, it is claimed that NSCs were not presented on 25.3.2016 because on that date, it was a public holiday in the department. Besides, it is also claimed that as per the rules of the department, any payment in excess of Rs.20,000/- liable to be made through cross cheque. On demand of maturity amount by the complainant, the department officials sent a requisition to the Head office for preparation of cheque for making payment of NSCs maturity amount to the complainant. That requisition was sent on 26.3.2016. 27.03.2016 was Sunday and that is why the complainant was advised to collect the cheque on 28.3.2016. Thereafter, complainant did not accept the cheque from the department and filed this false complaint. It is claimed that department ready to tender the cheque immediately. Allegations of negligence on the part of department officers denied. Despite receipt of the maturity cheque amount of Rs.80,050/- from OP3, the complainant has not collected the same. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

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

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

6.                During the course of proceedings of the case, Smt.Balbir Kaur, Sub Post Master at New Hargobind Nagar Post Office, Shiva Ji Nagar, Ludhiana brought the maturity cheque amount of Rs.80,050/- for handing over to the complainant on 15.6.2016, but counsel for complainant was ready or         willing to accept the cheque under protest. Thereafter, counsel for the Ops claimed that cheque under protest not to be tendered and that is why, the same taken back on 15.6.2016 itself by Smt. Balbir Kaur above said. So, it is obvious that though cheque in question offered to the complainant at the time of filing of the written statement, but despite that the same could not be handed over for fault of both the parties. On 21.7.2016, an application for seeking directions to Ops to tender the payment of maturity amount of Rs.80,050/- was filed and in response to the same, cheque No.441118 dated 28.3.2016(revalidated on 27.6.2016) by the Senior Post Master, Ludhiana) drawn at State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Ludhiana in the name of complainant, was brought by Smt.Balbir Kaur on 31.08.2016 and the    same was handed over to Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate for complainant who accepted same under protest by claiming that dispute remains regarding interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Complainant was having right to accept the cheque under protest in the first instance on 15.6.2016 itself, but the same was not handed over by the OPs by claiming that cheque not to be paid/tendered under protest. So for this fault of OPs, cheq   ue in question could not be handed over for more than 2 months during the pendency of the proceedings from 15.6.2016 to 31.8.2016. That is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OPs during the pendency of proceedings of the complaint.

7.                Complainant lodged online complaint registered on 29.3.2016. Copy of that complaint produced on record as Ex.C1. Complainant through Ex.C1, sought delivery of cheque of maturity amount of NSCs and that complaint was acknowledged through receipt Ex.C2 by allocating registration number to the complaint. Despite this complaint of 29.3.2016, the maturity cheque not sent through post to the complainant and as such, the same also is deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Department bound to disburse the maturity amount of NSCs to the customer at earliest and if the same not done, despite registration of the online complaint, then fault is on the part of officials of OPs. In view of that certainly complainant suffered mental tension and harassment.

8.                All the allegations levelled in the complaint are not correct because in para no.4 of the complaint and supporting affidavit, it is mentioned that NSCs were presented to Op1 on 25.3.2016, but the same fact absolutely is incorrect because schedule of gazetted holidays establishes that offices of the Central and State Government remained closed on 25.3.2016 on account of “Good Friday”. In such circumstances, plea taken in the written statement and supporting affidavit Ex.RA is correct that requisition of presentation of NSC was sent on 26.3.2016 and 27.3.2016 was Sunday, due to which, complainant was advised to collect the cheque on 28.3.2016. Requisition sent by Ops entered in the relevant register, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.R1. On sending of this requisition on 26.3.2016, cheque of 28.3.2016 (Ex.R2) was issued by the Senior Post Master, Ludhiana and as such, certainly plea taken in the written statement is correct that delivery of the cheque before 28.3.2016 was not possible. However, complainant sent registered email Ex.C1 for informing the officials of Post Office as if the concerned Post Master has not handed over the maturity cheque to him, but despite that the email reply not shown to be sent and as such, complainant virtually was kept in dark as to when he will be entitled to receive the cheque despite complaint Ex.C1. So, complaint certainly cannot be said to be frivolous or vexatious, even though the same does not contain the entire true facts as discussed above.

9.                It was not essential for complainant to go to ops to claim the due amount after issue of notice  because after lodging the complaint Ex.C1 through email, further action on the part of the complainant not required. Non-sending of reply to Ex.C1, despite its acknowledgement through Ex.C2 itself reflects negligence on the part of officials of Ops. Loss of interest as such at the most was for 5 months. Mental harassment was not on account of loss of interest alone, but otherwise also and as such, fitness of things require that amount of Rs.4000/- should be allowed as compensation along with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. That will be sufficient by keeping in view the fact that initially the cheque was tendered on 15.6.2016.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion and keeping in view the above pointed deficiency in service, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will pay compensation for mental harassment including one that of loss of interest,  of amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) to complainant. Litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against the Ops. Liability of Ops adjudged joint and several. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Karnail Singh)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                   Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.09.2016

Gobind Sharma.