Punjab

Firozpur

CC/15/130

Tarsem Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Dhawan

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Room No. B-122, 1st Floor, B-Block, District Administrative Complex
Ferozepur Cantt (Punjab)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/130
 
1. Tarsem Lal
Son of Late Sh. Mulakh Raj, resident of MOhallan Dollian Wala, Inside Multani Gate, Ferozepur City
Ferozepur
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Post Office
Ferozepur cantt through its Postmaster
Ferozepur
Punjab
2. Executive Officer
Post Master General (PMG) P-6, Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh
Chandigarh
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Gurpartap Singh Brar PRESIDENT
  Inderjeet Kaur MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Gaurav Dhawan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Abhey Batra, Advocate
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.

 

                                                                   C.C. No. 130 of 2015                                                                                          Date of Institution: 26.3.2015          

                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.8.2015

 

Tarsem Lal, Aged 55 years, Son of Late Sh. Mulkh Raj, Resident of Mohalla Dollan Wala, Inside Multani Gate, Ferozepur City, Mb.82880-41478.   

 

 

                                                                             …....... Complainant

Versus       

 

  1.    Post Office, Ferozepur Cantt through its Postmaster. 

2.      Executive Officer, Post Master General (PMG) P-6, Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

 

 

                                                                             ........ Opposite parties

 

Complaint   under Section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                                          *        *        *        *        *        *

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //2//

PRESENT :

For the complainant      :  Sh. Gaurav Dhawan, Advocate

For opposite party No.1    : Sh. A.S. Sodhi, Advocate

For opposite party No.2    : Ex-parte

QUORUM

S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President

Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member 

 ORDER

GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had opened  RD saving account bearing account No.1044338 which was to be matured on 19.12.2014 and the opposite parties had to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,45,780/-. According to the complainant that there are few employees of the opposite parties having grudge against complainant, the reason best know by them. RD of the complainant was completed on 16.12.2014 and the

 

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //3//

complainant was paid a sum of Rs.1,31,624/- because the RD in question was completed 3 days prior of the maturity period. The complainant had come to know about it after completing all the formalities. The opposite parties have paid less amount of Rs.14,156/- from the total amount of Rs.1,45,780/-. Further it has been pleaded that on 12.12.2014, the employees of the opposite parties namely Veena Goyal(Clerk), Baldev Raj (APM )and Kulwant Singh Kharbanda Superintendent have asked to open saving account in department of the opposite parties so that the maturity amount of Rs.1,45,780/- could be transferred directly to the saving account of the complainant. On their assurance, the complainant had opened a saving account on 13.12.2014. The complainant had given the passbook in question to the employees of the opposite parties and had told them to transfer the maturity amount on 19.12.2014 as complainant had to go out of station for few days. The above said employees of the opposite parties completes the formalities and matured the RD in question on 16.12.2014 without the permission of the complainant. When the complainant visited to Branch Office of Ferozepur and asked about this mischief, then Baldev Raj had answered that the employees of the opposite parties has assumed that the complainant had met with an accident and now immediately complainant

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //4//

has needed money. Therefore, they matured the RD in question just 3 days before the maturity date. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on dated 1.1.2015 to the opposite parties for payment of Rs.14,156/- to deposit in the saving account of the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. The opposite parties have given a very vague reply to the notice dated 1.1.2015. As per the version of the reply, the complainant has visited the office of the opposite parties No.1 on 11.12.2014 and submitted the account closure form for closure of his account-cum-RD. The complainant was not present at Ferozepur on 11.12.2014. As per version of the reply of OP No.1, the complainant visited again in the office of opposite party No.1 on 16.12.2014, but the complainant again had to go to Chandigarh for his official work to deliver the official parcels on 16.12.2014. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,156/- being the remaining RD amount alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pains, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation Expenses.

 

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //5//

2.                          The opposite party No.2 did not appear in this Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 8.5.2015.

3.                          Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint. In its written reply, the opposite party No.1 took some preliminary objection interalia that the complaint is not maintainable, is against law and facts on record; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and that there is no post as Executive Officer/opposite party No.2 in the Postal Department. On merits, it has been pleaded in the written reply that the complainant had attended the Head Post Office Ferozepur and submitted his account closure form under his signatures dated 11.12.2014 for closure of the above said RD account. Veena Goyal the Clerk of Post Office had informed the complainant that the date of maturity of the RD account is 19.12.2014 and the complainant shall not get the full maturity amount. However, the complainant insisted that he needed the money urgently, so the account of the complainant be closed. On the request of the complainant, the account of the complainant was closed. The consent to received the amount by the complainant on the account closure form was done under his signatures on 11.12.2014. Now after

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //6//

receiving the said amount the complainant cannot alleged that the said account was wrongly closed. It has been further pleaded that on 11.12.2014, the complainant was in a great hurry to receive the amount and insisted that as there was an emergency the same be given to him in cash. The complainant was advised that only a cheque could be given and in case he wanted to withdraw cash immediately, the amount could be transferred to a saving account that he may open in the post office. The complainant was given the account opening form and asked to submit documents for opening the saving account. The complainant then left the Post Office to collect the said documents but returned only on the evening of the next day i.e. 12.12.2014. However, as public hours were over the saving account No.3012025535 could only be opened on 13.12.2014. However, the complainant did not return to the Post Office and came back only on 16.12.2014, when on his request, the RD account was closed and the amount transferred to his saving bank account. The complainant had made a false story about being no present at Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 and 16.12.2014 as he was very much present on these dates. His own record shows that he left Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 and returned on 12.12.2014, but when he left Ferozepur and came back is not given.  The pleading of the complainant is

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //7//

that he did not attend the Post Office on 16.12.2014 as he was in Chandigarh is also false as his departure from Ferozepur is shown on 16.12.2014 as 04:00 P.M. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence EX C-1 to EX C-12 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence EX OP-1/1 to EX OP-1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.

5.                It is admitted by both the parties that complainant had opened the RD saving account bearing account No.1044338 with the opposite parties which was to be matured on 19.12.2014. it is also admitted case of the parties that after maturity of the RC saving account, the opposite parties have to pay a sum of Rs.1,45780/- to the complainant. The grievances of the complainant is that the opposite parties closed RD account of the complainant on 16.12.2014 which was to be matured on 19.12.2014. The

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //8//

complainant has been given less amount of Rs.14,156/- from the total amount i.e. Rs.1,45,780/-. To prove his version that the complainant has placed on record copy of passbook EX. C-11 and EX. C-12 from which it is proved that the opposite parties had paid Rs.1,31,674/- to the complainant instead of Rs.1,45,780/-. The complainant to prove that he served a legal notice to the opposite parties and the opposite parties had given reply to the notice of the complainant has placed on file. Copy of notice is EX. C-2, copy of reply of notice is EX.C-3 and copy of postal receipt is EX. C-4. From the documents i.e. EX. C-2 to EX. C-4 it is proved that the complainant served a legal notice. The version of the complainant is that he was not present at Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 when the account of the complainant was closed by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged in the complaint on 16.12.2014 the complainant had to go to Chandigarh for his official work to deliver the official parcels. The complainant was also not present at Ferozepur on 16.12.2014. To prove that the complainant had not present and had not visited the office of the opposite parties as placed on file copy of documents EX. C-6 to EX. C-10. On the other hand, the opposite parties pleaded in the written reply that the complainant has attended the Head Post Office Ferozepur and submitted his account closure form under his

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //9//

signatures dated 11.12.2014 for closure of the above said RD account. The opposite parties have placed on file copy of account closure form EX.OP-1/4. From which it is proved that the complainant has submitted his closure form with the opposite party to close his RD account on 11.12.2014. The closure form is EX.OP-1/4 also bears the signature of the complainant. It has been pleaded by the opposite parties that account of the complainant was closed with the permission of the complainant and the complainant consulted to receive an amount of Rs.1,31,624/-. From the pleadings and documents it is proved that the complainant was in a great hurry to receive the amount and insisted the opposite parties to make him payment immediately. The complainant himself open the account on account bearing No.3012025535 on 13.12.2014 in the Post Office. From the document EX. OP-1/2 and EX.OP-1/3 it is proved that the opposite party closed the RD account of  the complainant and opened his new account on 13.12.2014 with the consent of the complainant. The version of the complainant is that he was not present on 11.12.2014 and 16.12.2014 in Ferozepur. From the document EX.C-7 which is produced by the complainant to prove that he was not present in Ferozepur on 16.12.2014, it is not proved that he was not present at Ferozepur on 16.12.2014, because the time of departure from

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //10//

Ferozepur to Chandigarh is mentioned as 04:00 PM. So, it is proved that the complainant was present on 16.12.2014 at Ferozepur. The complainant has also placed on file document EX. C-5 to prove that he was not present on 11.12.2014 in Ferozepur but on the document EX C-5 the time of departure is not mentioned. So, the complainant is failed to prove that he was not present in Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 and has not visited the office of the opposite party and signed the closure form. From the documents and pleading of the parties it is proved that the complainant himself with his free consent filed closure form and opened his account and himself transferred a sum of Rs.1,31,624/- in his account. From the documents and pleading of the complaint is that the complainant has made a false story about being not present at Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 and 16.12.2014 as he was very much present on these dates. His own record shows that he left Ferozepur on 11.12.2014 and returned on 12.12.2014, but when he left Ferozepur and came back is not given. The version of the complainant is that he did not attend the post office on 16.12.2014 as he was in Chandigarh is also false as his departure from Ferozepur is shown on 16.12.2014 is shown as 04:00 PM, which clearly shows that the complainant is making false allegation on the

 

C.C. No. 130 of 2015                       //11//

opposite party. The complainant is also failed to prove that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.                In view of what has been discussed above, the present  complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced                                                           (Gurpartap Singh Brar)

27.08.2015                                                   President  

 

 

 

                                                                   (Inderjeet Kaur)                                                                                           Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Gurpartap Singh Brar]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Inderjeet Kaur]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.