DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day of  December  2021

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President        

             :   Smt.Vidya.A., Member

       Date of filing: 02.03.2019.

       CC/49/2019

Venugopalaswamy

S/o.Sankaran Nair                      -          Complaint      

Karattu House

V.P.Thara

Kollengode

(By Adv:Viju k Raphel)

                              Vs

1.Rajeswary

Kollangode Railway Station

Post Master

Ootra Branch                                                   Opposite Parties

Kollengode

2.Kollengode Post Office

Ootra Branch Office

Kollengode

O R D E R

By Smt Vidya A, Member

1.Brief Facts of the Complaint

The complainant is a savings account holder of Kollengode Railway Station Post Office with A/c.No.3328597535.  He approached the Kollengode Railway Station branch post office on 09/02/2019 afternoon for withdrawing money from his account.  On that day some other staff of the post office was in charge of the post master.  She informed the complainant that she was not authorized to do withdrawal or other transactions.  She was also reluctant to give the complaint book to him for noting his complaint.  The complainant is a senior citizen aged 80 years and he suffered mental and physical strain because of this.  Earlier also he had the same experience.  He had complained about this to the Palakkad Postal Superintendent.

This complaint is filed for getting compensation from the opposite parties and from the staff who was in charge of the post office on that day and for directing opposite parties not to engage such irresponsible person in duty.

2.       Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

3.       Contentions in the version of the opposite parties

They admit that the complainant approached the Kollengode Railway Station Branch post office for SB withdrawal on 09/02/2019.  The branch post master Smt.Rajeswary (OP1) was on leave that day and the charge was handed over to another staff Smt.Haripriya.  The complainant asked for an SB withdrawal of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees Thousand only).  But the acting BPM was not in a position to make SB withdrawal or any other transaction as she was not authorized to do the same in Rural Information and Communication Technology device for branch post masters.  After the Darpan Rollout and implementation of Rural Information and Communication Technology (RICT) in branch post offices, all the transactions are to be performed through RICT device only.  For that branch post master or his / her substitute must be properly authorized to get access to the facility.

On 09/02/2019, the acting BPM of opposite party 2 was not authorized to perform transaction in Rural Information and Communication Technology device.  Substitute authorization is being generally done by the Sub Divisional Heads concerned and only after the same, the acting BPM can get access to the Rural Information and Communication Technology device.  Inspector of Post Alathur, the Sub Divisional Head could not assign the substitute login ID in  Rural Information and Communication Technology (RICT) device as there were several technical problems and network connectivity issues on the date.

A complaint received from the complainant in this connection was enquired and it revealed that the acting BPM had treated the complainant respectfully and tried to convince that she could not do anything without authorization to perform the transactions in Rural Information and Communication Technology device .  But the complainant did not cooperate and shouted  at the acting BPM and told that he needs money urgently.  The acting branch Post Master made polite suggestion to the complainant to use ATM card for SB withdrawal or avail withdrawal from Kollengode Sub Post Office as she was not in a position to make transactions.,  But the complainant was not amenable for the suggestion and continue to scold her.  If he was genuinely in need of money, he could have used the ATM anytime from anywhere or approach Kollengode post office.  The allegation in the complaint that the acting BPM refused to hand over the complaint and suggestion book is false,  The book is exhibited inside the branch office and is readily available for the customers.

The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.  There is no willful denial of any service by any of the opposite parties or by the acting BPM.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 are not directly involved in the case and they came to know about the same only when informed by the acting BPM.  So the complaint has to be dismissed. 

4.       Complainant filed chief affidavit and additional affidavit Exhibit A1 to A4 marked (A2 to A4 marked subject to proof) 2nd opposite party filed IA.203/20 to cross examine  the complainant.  The Commission directed them to file interrogatories instead of cross examination which was answered by the complainant.

5.       Opposite parties filed chief affidavit and Exhibit B1 to B6 marked.  (B5 and B6 marked subject to objection).  Senior Superintendent of post office was examined as DW1.           Evidence of both sides closed and Heard both parties.

Points to be considered

          (1).Is there any deficiency is service on the part of opposite parties?

          (2).If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation?

Points  1& 2

6.       It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party office for SB withdrawal on 09/02/2019.  Their contention is that the Branch post master (1st opposite party) was on leave and the person in charge of her was not authorized to do SB withdrawal or any other transaction.  After the Darpan Roll out and implementation of Rural Information and communication Technology (RICT) in branch post offices, all the transactions are to be performed through RICT device only and for that the Branch Post Master or substitute must be properly authorized to get access to the facility.  On that date, Inspector of post, Alathur, the Sub Divisional Head could not assign the substitute login ID in RICT device as there were several technical problems and network connectivity issues.

7.       So it is clear from their contention itself that the person in charge of the BPM could not do the transaction as she was not authorized and not provided with the substitute log in ID in Rural Information and Communication Technology device due to technical problems and network connectivity issues.  The complainant could not withdraw money from his account because of this. It is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party office.

8.       The opposite party’s contention that if the complainant was genuinely in need of money, he could have used ATM or approached the Kollengode Post Office cannot be taken into consideration. 

9.       The complainant is an aged person.  In the answers given to the interrogatories, the complainant had stated the he is 80 years old and having physical disabilities including reduced eye sight and he is unable to use ATM cards and to avoid ATM card usage he had opted for savings account in post office.  This appears to be correct explanation for the opposite party’s contention.

10.     The opposite parties are bound to allow withdrawal of money as and when their customer is in need of money.  They cannot say lame excuses and request the customer to use some other methods or to visit another branch in order to withdraw money.  Further it is clear from Dw1’s deposition that sImÃt¦mSv RS Branch SB withdrawal \S¯m³ A[nImcs¸Sp¯nb Hcp {_m©mWv.  Fkv._n A¡u­n A\ymb¡mc³ \nt£]n¨ XpIbpw, ]n¶oSv ]enibpamWv D­mhpI.  Fkv._n A¡u­nsâ ]cn[n¡\pkcn¨v A\ymb¡mc\v ]n³hen¡pIbpw sN¿mw.  \nba{]Imcw BbmÄ¡v kwJy ]n³hen¡m³ bmsXmcp XSÊhpanÃ.  So it is clear from the deposition that the 2nd opposite party office is empowered to allow withdrawal of amount and there is no legal impediment on the part of the complainant to withdraw money from his account. 

11.     The opposite parties need not look into the genuineness of need of the complainant.  The complainant being a savings account holder is at liberty to withdraw money on working hours of any working day.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to depute another staff with necessary authorization to perform the duties when the BPM is on leave.  The customer need not suffer for the technical problems happened in their office.  They are duty bound to make alternative arrangements to provide proper service to their customers.

12.     The opposite parties took the contention that the staff who was in charge of the BPM had asked the complainant to give the duly filled withdrawal form for giving withdrawal manually which the complainant refused.  They have not raised this contention in their version, but only in their additional affidavit which shows that it is only an after thought.  Further they have not adduced any evidence to prove their contention.

13.     Since the entire dispute is based on the technical snag that arose, we do not propose to cast any liability on the staffs of op2.  Op1 is absolved of any liability.

14.     The complainant could not withdraw money only because of the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party office for which he has to be compensated.  The complainant suffered mental agony as he could not get the amount when he is in  need.  The complainant who is a senior citizen with physical ailments was unnecessarily dragged before the Commission for which he is entitled to get compensation from the 2nd opposite party office.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.  We direct the 2nd opposite party office to pay,

          (1).Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and (2)Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of this litigation.

Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.

    Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st  day of  December 2021.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                              President.

                                                                              Sd/-  

                                                                                               Vidya.A                                                                                                             Member

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1–  Post office savings pass book bearing account number  3328597535.

Ext.A2 -  Certificate dated 17/06/2019 issued by Station House Officer,

                Kollengode Police Station

Ext.A3 –  Acknowledgement card bearing no.678000-10930 dated 25/02/2019.

Ext.A4 -  Copy of reminder letter  dated 18/03/2019.

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext. B1–  Applicationdtd 09/02/19  for leave for Gramin Dak Sevaks.

Ext.B2 -  Copy of memo no.GL/20 Paid SPL dtd 27/02/19.

Ext.B3 –  Original version filed by Ms.Rajeswari.T.M. in this C.C.

Ext.B4 -  Original communication dtd 12/07/2019 issued by

                Ms.Rajeswari.T.M. in this C.C.

Ext.B5 -  Copy of complaint filed by Ms.Rajeswari.T.M. before the C.I of

                Police, Kollengode.

Ext.B6 -  Copy of acknowledgement receipt of petition bearing no.146622 dtd.

               10/10/19.

Witness for complainants:-Nil

Witness for opposite parties:-   

DW1:-         A.Sudhakaran, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Palakkad

Cost: 3,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Resolution 20(5) of the Consumer protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 falling which they will be weeded out.