BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.324 of 2016

Date of Instt. 25.07.2016

Date of Decision: 08.08.2017

Raman Bala W/o Sh. Kapil Dev R/o H. No.14, Diamond Avenue Nr. Urban Estate-I Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Senior Superintendent of Post, Department of Post GPO Building Jalandhar City.

2. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Urban Estate Phase-I, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. GPS Rana, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that she opened two recurring deposit accounts bearing accounts old No.10491, 10492, new No.0196192922, 0196192915, with the Post Office of Sub-post master Urban Estate-I Jalandhar in the name of her childrens namely Madhav sharma and Ankita Sharma with the value of Rs.2000/- each. Both the recurring deposits were opened through complainant as both the children were minor at the starting of the month of February 2011 and the maturity date of the said RD's was January, 2016. The complainant deposited the pass book of both the accounts in the month of February, 2016 with a request to release the cheque of maturity value and she completed all the required formalities and post master assured the complainant that the cheque will be issued to her soon. But to the utter surprise of complainant the OP No.2 issued the cheque of Rs.2,91,560/- dated 14.03.2016, which was delivered to complainant on 24.03.2016 of District Kapurthala. The complainant deposited the said cheque through her bank State Bank of India, Plam Rose Branch, Urban Estate Phase-I, Jalandhar and even Rs.229/- was also deducted by the Bank of complainant as the said cheque was of outstation. The complainant has also issued legal notice dated 17.05.2016 to OPs through her counsel call upon OPs to give interest of 23 days on the maturity value of Rs.2,91,560/- along with Rs.229/-, which were charged by the bank of his client along with cost of Rs.5000/- of the legal notice but the OP did not pay the said amount and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly both the OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply and admitted para No.1 of the complaint in toto but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

4. Similarly counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant to the extent that the complainant opened two recurring deposit accounts bearing old account No.10491, 10492 and new No.0196192922, 0196192915 with the Post Office of Sub-Post Master Urban Estate-I Jalandhar in the name of her Children namely Madhav Sharma and Ankita Sharma with the value of Rs.2000/- each for monthly deposit and the said recurring deposit had to mature in the month of January, 2016 and accordingly the complainant deposited the passbook of both the accounts in the month of February, 2016 with the request to release the cheque of maturity value and admittedly the cheque to the tune of Rs.2,91,560/- dated 14.03.2016 was issued by the OP. Up to this extent, there is no dispute rather these factum have been admitted by both the parties.

7. The issue in dispute is only that the OP has prepared the cheque on 14.03.2016 and handed over to the complainant after 23 days and the said cheque was given for the branch of Kapurthala, whereas the complainant is residing and having its account at Jalandhar and due to issue of cheque of Kapurthala branch, the complainant has to pay extra amount of Rs.229/-, which was charged by the Bank as transfer charges and as such the complainant is claiming that he is entitled the interest of 23 days as well as refund of Rs.229/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8. In order to reach the right conclusion whether the cheque was issued by the OP for Kapurthala branch, for that purpose, the complainant has not brought on the file photostat copy of the cheque, no doubt the cheque was deposited but its certified copy can be obtained from the bank and further more if we go through the copy of the passbook of the complainant, which is Ex.C2, wherein it is not clearly described whether the complainant has account at Jalandhar or Kapurthala. Moreover the OP has alleged that they have printed cheque and issue to each of the customer the same cheque, wherein the name of the post office is printed. The director of the accounts postal is sitting at Kapurthala and accordingly the name of the city Kapurthala is mentioned being the office of the director accounts at Kapurthala but the cheque was issued from Jalandhar, for that purpose, there is a mention post master in Jalandhar Cantt and specimen original cheque has been brought on the file by the OP, which is Ex.OP2 and even the OP has given reply to the legal notice and copy of the same is placed on the file by the complainant which is Ex.C7, wherein categorically mentioned in the last para that the out station charges by Kapurthala Bank is justified and there is no any fault of the OP as the cheque was presented in out side bank of Jalandhar jurisdiction, it is the duty of the depositor, who has presented his cheque in Kapurthala instead of Jalandhar, this reply of the OP has been brought on the file by the complainant herself and could not able to rectify this reply in any manner. So, it is clearly established that the complainant herself presented the cheque in Kapurthala branch and due to that reason the transfer charges were deducted from the account of the complainant and moreover, the cheque was prepared on 14.03.2016 and it is to be received by the complainant from the post office and accordingly the complainant herself received the cheque on 23.03.2016 as elaborated by the OP in para No.4 and this factum has also not been controverted by the complainant in any manner. So, accordingly we do not find any delay in making payment and even there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore, we do not find any substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

08.08.2017 Member President