This complaint case is regarding a dispute on maturity claims for Kisan Vikas Patras purchased from post office. The prayer of the complainant is for a direction upon the OP post office to make payment of the maturity value of the KVPs alongwith interest for delay.
The case of the complainant in gist is that the complainant’s father late Sri Nirapada Halder of village Harekrishnapur, PO: Earpur, PS: Usthi, South 24 Parganas purchased 1 no KVP for Rs 5,000/- dated 21.07.1994, 1 no KVP for Rs. 5,000/- dated 01.08.1994 and another 8 no. of KVPs each of Rs. 500/- all dated 21.07.1994 totalling to Rs. 14,000/-. The purchaser died on 02.07.1995 when this complainant was minor and he came to know from his father being the nominee and beneficiary of those KVPs. The KVPs were issued from Alipore storeyard post office, Kolkata 700027. Subsequently upon enquiry from the said post office, the complainant gathered that the post office got shifted and accordingly contacted the Head post office at Alipore. The complainant claimed having filed application for receiving the maturity value of these KVPs, but the post office did not issue receipt of such application. Thereafter the complainant contacted the Sr. Supdt. of Post offices, Central Kolkata, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata 700029 for encashment of those KVPs upon maturity. But of no avail. Hence this complaint case was filed for the deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OP post office.
The complainant filed exhibits in support of the death of his father e.g. death certificate dated 14.02.2002 from Anchal Pradhan, Grampanchayat, Mograhat 1, Usthi, South 24 Parganas, stating that the purchaser of the KVPs late Sri Nirapada Halder S/o late Sri Bipin Behari Halder died on 02.07.1995, front side photo copy of KVPs bearing regn no. 734 for Rs 5000/- dated 01.08.1994, Rs. 5000/-dated 21.07.1994 bearing regn no 726 and 8 no of KVPs each of 500/- all bearing regn no. 726 dated 21.07.1994.
The Ld. Advocate of the OP denied having received any application in support or a proof of claimant as a nominee for encashment of the KVPs. The OPs also denied the contention of the complaint having him verbally contacted the post office or the higher offices with proper documents in support of his claim. Rather the OPs contested that such claims are without any proof. As a matter of fact, the complainant even during pendency of the instant failed to produce any probate or succession certificate or will or court order in support of his claim which supersedes the claim of the registered nominees of those KVPs. As per records of the postal department, the complainant is not the nominee regarding any of these KVPs in question. Hence the allegations were denied by the OPs as groundless. The complainant also filed evidence on affidavit with same contention as per complaint when questionnaire versus replies of both parties were exchanged. The OPs questioned the complainant whether any probate or succession certificate or will legal heir certificate or succession certificate of the deceased were obtained or not. In reply the complainant claimed that no such document is available with him since these are not required in case of having a valid nomination for the KVPs. As per the record book maintained manually by the post offices in the relevant point of time Sri Subimal Halder and Smt. Parbati Halder are the registered nominees of those KVPs. But the complainant claimed that since the postal department has not provided any such document hence complainant should have been paid the maturity value as sole claimant. The death intimation of late Sri Nirapada Halder was filed by the complainant.
Evidence were adduced by both sides. The Ld. Advocate of the OP and the complainant advanced their arguments. BNAs were filed and the matter was heard finally on 23.05.2023read with all records and documents and exhibits. The arguments were advanced by the complainant in person and the Ld. Advocate of OP1 and OP2.The main points for determination of this case are that:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under the CP Act.
- Whether the complaint of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of OP is established or not
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for or not.
The decisions with reasons on all the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
It is found that the OP has issued KVPs worth Rs.14,000/- of various denominations in favour of one Sri Nirmalndu Halder since deceased. The complainant has averred on affidavit that he is the son of the KVP purchaser. There is not much scope available to deny this information since the same has not been opposed by the OPs. Hence the Complainant, from the stand point of beneficiary, can be viewed as a Consumer under the scopes and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
From the OP’s exhibits, it appears that one KVP of Rs. 5,000/- was purchased on 21.07.1994 with a regn.no726 and nomination regn. no. 552. & date of maturity as 21.07.2000. Another one KVP of Rs. 5,000/- was purchased on 01.08.1994 with a date of maturity on 01.08.2000 with registration no 734 and nomination regn. no. 558. Another 8 no of KVPs, each of Rs.500/- vide regn. no. 726 with nomination regn. no. 552 were purchased on 21.07.1994 to be matured on 21.07.2000. From the records exhibited by the OP1 and OP2 post office, more specifically the copy of record book maintained manually during concerned point of time, which includes the record of other KVP purchasers and their nominations in seriatim, it transpires that all the registered nominations of the subject KVPs are in favour Sri Subimal Halder (Son) and Smt Parbati Halder (wife) of the deceased KVP purchaser. Hence the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim with any cogent proof having some evidentiary value. The complainant may be one of the sons of the KVP purchaser Late Sri Nirapada Halder. But the complaint has not exhibited any document in support of his claim that he is the nominee of the KVP purchaser. Hence, the complaint of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on the part of OPs is not established.
Hence the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the instant complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.
However the legitimate claimants or their successors are free to submit their claims against submission of cogent proof before the post office for consideration as per rules.
Let a plain copy of this Order be provided to both the parties free of cost as per CPR.
