BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

                 Con. Case No. 3 of 2014

            Smti Ruma Das, ……………………………………………………           Complainant.        

                                                                        -V/S-

            The Union of India

1.         The Postmaster General,

            Department of Posts, Assam Circle,

            Meghdoot Bhawan, Pan Bazar, Guwahati-1.                                                            OP No.1

2.         The Senior Postmaster,

            Silchar Head Post Office, Silchar-1,                                                                          OP No.2

3.         The Deputy Postmaster,

            Silchar Head Post Office, Silchar-1.                                                                          OP No.3

4.         The Sub-Postmaster,

            Tarapur Part-VII Post Officer, Silchar-8.                                                                OP No.4

Present: -                            Sri Bishnu Debnath, B.Com., LL.M.                                  President,

                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                 Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                                     Member,

                                                District Consumer Forum,

                                                  Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                  Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                        Member,

                                                District Consumer Forum,

                                                 Cachar, Silchar.                                             

            Appeared :-                 Sri Pradip Kumar Das , Advocate for the Complainant.

Sri Dipak Kumar Deb,  (Govt. Pleader) for the O.P. Nos.1, 2 ,3 & 4.

                         Date of Evidence……………….                    24-06-2014, 23-07-2014

                         Date of  written Argument………………        19-03-2015,

                         Date of judgment………………                     25-04-2017

                                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(Sri Bishnu Debnath)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

1. Smti. Ruma Das brought the complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the Postmaster General and 3 (three) other Postal Officer for award of payment Rs. 1,400.00 (One Thousand Four Hundred) only of cheque No. 469490 dated 09-01-2012 and compensation for disservice etc.

2. Complaint brought the following fact:- She received a cheque No. 469490 dated 09-01-2012 from Silchar Medical College and Hospital (SMCH)under ‘Janani Suraksha Yujona’ Scheme. The cheque amount was Rs. 1,400.00. She presented the said cheque to Tarapur part-VII, Post Office to her Saving Bank Account No. 9402687 on 02-04-2012 for crediting to her account. But the cheque was not encashed. On inquiry it had been learnt that cheque has been lost in transit. Hence, she felt aggrieved and treating the fact of not crediting the cheque amount to her S/B A/C No. 9402687 as disservice, so lodged the instant complaint.

3. The Postmaster General, The Senior Postmaster, Silchar Head Post Office, The Deputy Postmaster, Silchar Head Post Office and the Sub Postmaster, Tarapur Part VII, Post Office being O.P Nos.1,2,3 and 4 respectively on receiving the notice of this Forum submitted their joint W/S. In the W/S they admitted the fact that the complainant presented her cheque No. 469490 dated 09-01-2012 on 02-04-2012 to her S/B A/C No. 9402687 but the cheque was lost during transit from Tarapur Sub Post Office to Silchar Head Post Officer. Accordingly, on their official correspondences the SMCH issued duplicate cheque No. 843507 dated 11-06-2013 of Rs.1,400.00 in favour of the complainant. Hence, as per the O.Ps there is no disservice.

4. During hearing the complaint deposed as P.W-1 and exhibited 4 (four) documents including her Pass Book of S/B/ A/C No. 9402687. The contesting also examined Sri Kanak Kanti Barman, the Deputy Postmaster, Silchar Head Post Office as D.W and exhibited copy of advocate notice and all official correspondences in respect of loss of the cheque No. 469490 dated 09-01-2012 and issuance of duplicate cheque No. 843507 dated 11-06-2013.

5. We have heard argument of the Ld. Advocate of the parties and perused the evidence on record including written argument of the complaint.

6. In this case, in view of evidence on record it is not established that the complainant did not receive duplicate cheque No. 843507 dated 11-06-2013 for Rs. 1,400.00. The complainant did not whisper the fact of receiving a duplicate cheque of Rs 1,400/- in the complaint as well as in the examination-in-chief. It is the O.P who brought the fact about the duplicate cheque for RS. 1,400.00 issue by the SMCH. To support the said fact the D.W exhibited a letter address to the complainant by the Superintendent SMCH bearing No. SMCH/NRHM/JSY/01/07-08/415 dated 11-06-2013, vide Ext.F. It is also revealed from the evidence on record that the O.P No.2 the Senior Post master wrote a letter dated 23-11-2012 to the Chief Medical Officer, SMCH in respect of the fact regarding untraced cheque No. 469490 dated 09-01-2012 and also wrote a letter dated 07-02-2012 to the Block Account Manager (NRHM), SMCH regarding issuance of duplicate cheque in favour of the complainant, vide Ext.H. In addition, of the above corresponding letters the O.Ps submitted some other letters issued by the O.P to SMCH authority regarding lost cheque.

7. In the instant case, it is evident that the lost cheque deposited on 12/04/2012 in the Post Office.   The said cheque has been lost in transit as per opinion of the O.Ps. If this is the real fact we may refer the ratio of the case law in SBI Vs Jagjit Kaur First Appeal No. 151 of 2008 of State Commission, Punjab. As per the above case the State commission Punjab held that cheque lost in transit is deficiency in service. The Supreme Court as well as National Commission in number of Judgment held that if cheque lost in transit is deficiency in service of Bank.

8. Thus, the above ratio is taken in to consideration in the instant case and held that O.P (Post  Office)  was in deficiency in Banking Service because the O.P did not inform the Complainant in time the fact of lost of the cheque in transit. That is why due to the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. The Complainant suffered monetary loss for a period of at least 1year 2 months.

9. That is why, keeping in mind the above period of delay of crediting the cheque amount into her Bank Account, we have applied our prudent mind to considered that if the O.P (Post Office) is directed to pay Rs.500.00 (Five Hundred) only as compensation, It will meet the end of justice. Thus, we have ordered to the O.P No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.500.00 (Five Hundred) only and cost of Rs 500 (Rupees Five Hundred) only within 45 days from today. In default of payment within the stipulated period the awarded amount will fetch interest at rate of 10% per annum with effect from the 46^th day from today till realization of the full amount. As it is evident that the Complainant already received the duplicate cheque of Rs 1,400/-, so we are not inclined to award any relief for re-payment of the cheque amount. With the above, this case is disposed of on contest.

10. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties. Given under the signature of the president and member of this District Forum and seal of the Office, on this the 25^th of April 2017.