RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2431 of 1999

1- Union of India through Secretary,

     Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi.

2- Chief Post Master, Head Post Office,

    Kanpur.                                                     ….Appellants.

Versus

R.N. Bhargava, R/o 18/53, The Mall,

Kanpur.                                                        …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.

Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellant. 

None for the respondent.

Date  12.8.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.7.1999, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Dehat in complaint case No.337 of 1999, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant and have perused the records. The factual matrix of the case is

(2)

that the respondent/complainant Sri R.N. Bhargava purchased some VI Issue of National Savings Certificates and thereafter, opened a Savings Bank Account no.919346 for transferring the half yearly interest accrued on the aforesaid certificates in the same. It was alleged that the appellants Post Offices failed to transfer the interest in the aforesaid Savings Bank Account in time thereby, caused him certain financial loss. This was treated as deficiency in service and accordingly, complaint case no.337 of 1999 was filed. The appellants admitted before the Forum below that the interest was calculated and transferred on the yearly basis. There was some mistakes in the calculation of interest which was rectified in time and accordingly, the amount was transferred in the account of the respondent and, therefore, the respondent suffered no financial loss. There was no malafide or remiss on the part of the appellant. The Forum below took all facts, circumstances and evidence on record and held that the failure of the appellants to remit the interest accrued on the NSCs in the account no.919346 of the respondent was a deficiency on its part and accordingly, awarded a sum of  Rs.1,000.00 as compensation and Rs.200.00 as cost of litigation. The basis of holding deficiency in service has not been explained. There is no doubt that the respondent has received the interest accrued on the NSCs and thereby, has suffered no financial loss and, therefore, the award of Rs.1,000.00 as compensation and Rs.200.00 as cost of litigation is unwarranted and uncalled for in the given

(3)

circumstances. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order can not be allowed to sustain and the appeal deserves to be allowed.  

  ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 3.7.1999, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Kanpur Dehat in complaint case No.337 of 1999, is set aside.  No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Bal Kumari)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4