Haryana

Ambala

CC/339/2019

Jeeto Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Postmaster /Subpostmaster - Opp.Party(s)

Dharmvir Dhiman

04 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no. : 339 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution :  24.10.2019

                                                          Date of decision     :  04.03.2022.

         

Jeeto Devi aged about 50 years wife of Shri Ram Rattan, R/o Village Lalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.                                                                                                                                           …......Complainant.

                   Versus

1.       Postmaster/Sub Post Master, Village Lalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District       Ambala.

2.       Post Master Naraingarh, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala.

3.       Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala, Division Ambala.

 

                                                                               ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Dharamvir Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Aseem Jain, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.14,332/-, alongwith interest from the date of deposit.  
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the  mental agony and physical harassment suffered by complainant.
3. To pay Rs.5,000/-, as litigation costs.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the resident of Village Lalpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Complainant is maintaining a post office saving account bearing No.7235876170, with the OP No.1, since 10.01.2005. Complainant was depositing the money regularly in her account. On 28.11.2016, she deposited Rs.10,000/- in her saving account and that time balance was of Rs.14,332/-, and she received her passbook with the balance of Rs.14,332/-, duly stamped and signed by the official of the OP No.1. In the month of May,2018, complainant went to the post office, Lalpur, i.e OP No.1, for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, from her said saving account. The official of OP No.1, told her that she is not eligible to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/-, as the computer is not showing the balance amount of Rs.14,332/-, in her account and suggested to go to the main post office, Naraingarh. Thereafter, complainant went to the main post office, Naraingarh i.e OP No.2 who refused to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-, on the ground that computer screen is not showing the balance amount of Rs.14,332/-. Complainant wrote a letter to the OP No.3, to get the claim but it rejected her claim on 07.01.2019, on the ground that her case is not admissible due to her negligence.  Hence the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it is stated that the complainant opened the saving account No.591435 on 10.01.2005 by depositing Rs.1,000/-. Later on, the said account number was replaced with new account number i.e 7235876170 (in new software). The amount of Rs.14,332/- was not lying in the saving account of the complainant, as such, the main post office Naraingarh could not make the payment for want of balance. The claim of the complainant was correctly rejected because complainant herself admitted in her statement dated 08.06.2018 that passbook remained with the BPM Lalpur BO, instead of account holder and thus, he violated the instruction mentioned on the passbook. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied and OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.                 Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Ms. Radhika Dhir, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ambala as Annexure OP-A along with documents Annexure OP-1 to OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 28.11.2016, an amount of Rs.14,332/-, was lying deposited in the saving account of the complainant. In the month of May, 2018, she approached the OPs, for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/-, but they refused to pay the said amount.

7.                 On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs has vehemently argued that complainant wrongly alleged that on 28.11.2016 an amount of Rs.14,332/- was lying deposited in her saving account. In the Month of May, 2018, payment of Rs.10,000/-, could not be made for want of balance. Even otherwise, complainant violated the instructions mentioned on the passbook because she left her passbook with the BPM Lalpur, without getting any receipt.

8.                It is an admitted fact that complainant was maintaining a saving account with the OPs. Complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.14,332/-, was lying deposited in her account but OPs refused to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant. From the perusal of copy of passbook, Annexure C-2, it is evident that the page No.10 and 18 of the copy of the passbook are affixed together. At page No.10, entry dated 28.11.2016, was made and there was cutting on the entry made on 05.01.2017. More so, neither at the page No.10, the stamp of the post office was affixed nor it was signed. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said document to arrive at conclusion that on 28.11.2016, there was balance of Rs.14,332/-, in the account of the complainant but in the month of May, 2018, OPs refused to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant. No cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record by the complaint to prove her case in the absence thereof, we hold that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits, consequently we dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 04.03.2022.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)          (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                Member                         President

 

 

Present:       Shri Dharamvir Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Aseem Jain, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on:04.03.2022.

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                      Member                         President