DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./.37/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
11.02.2022 17.02.2022 11.07.2024
Complainant/s:- | Smt. Soma Roy Chowdhury, W/o Sri Pradip Kumar Roy Chowdhury, “Mahendra Apartment”, 1A 2/2 Shibchal Road, P.O. Birati, P.S. Nimta, Kolkata – 700051. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1. Sr. Superintendent of Post Office North Presidency Division, Barrackpore, P.O. + P.S. Kolkata – 700120. 2. The Postmaster, Belghoria H.O., P.O + P.S. Belghoria, Kolkata – 700056. 3. The Sub Postmaster, Birati S.O., P.O. – Birati, P.S. – Nimta, Kolkata – 700051. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint U/s 34 / 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the aforesaid Opposite Parties praying for direction to refund Rs. 1,14,280/- and 41,109/- in favour of the Complainant, compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, cost of the case and other reliefs.
She alleged that she being a senior citizen invested total amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- in different Post Offices as per Senior Citizen Savings Scheme issued by the Postal Authority.
On 18/06/2020 and 27/06/2020 she had received two letters with the subject exceeding limit of maximum investment. By the said letter she was advised to close account with excess amount of the scheme and she came to learn for the first time the maximum limit of the scheme is Rs. 15,00,000/-.
Post Master Birati agreed to close two accounts vide no. 3347452693 and account no. 3400141144 and at the time off closing to those two accounts O.Ps illegally deducted Rs. 1,14,280/- in account no. 3347452693 and they also deducted Rs. 41,109/- in account no. 3400141144.
Complainant raised protest to the different postal authorities but did not get any fruitful result. Hence, the Complainant filed this case praying for aforesaid relief.
O.Ps appeared in this record and filed W/V and denied the entire allegations contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable, case is bad for want of cause of action, case barred by the principle of estopple waiver and acquisition, case is barred by law of limitation and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present case.
They further contended that Complainant invested Rs. 22,40,000/- i.e. exceeding the maximum limit of Rs. 15,00,000/- in contravention of SCSS Rules, 2004 though at the time of opening of SCSS accounts Complainant gave declaration in the account opening form that she is adhere to ceiling of deposit.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./.37/2022
They further contended that Sub-Postmaster Birati, S.O. issued letter bearing no. BRT/Misc/S.R Chowdhury/2021 dated at Birati 18/06/2020, 27/06/2020, 29/10/2020 and 12/11/2020 to the Complainant for settlement regarding irregularities regarding excess investment amount. Also Senior Superintendent of Post Office Barrackpore Division made communication on several times vide letter dated 14/10/2020, 11/11/2020, 02/12/2020, 14/12/2020, 21/12/2020, 15/03/2021 and 16/03/2021 for submission of SCSS Passbooks at Birati Post Office bearing no. 3347452693 amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/- and number 3400141144 for Rs. 2,00,000/- regarding recovery of excess interest in respect of excess investment amount. But Complainant being the account holder did not close the aforesaid two accounts. As a result this matter was lying unsettled for a long time. As the account holder did not close the aforesaid two accounts towards immediate settlement of the matter. Office of the Opposite Parties had freezed the SCSS account vide no. 3347452693 amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/- and SCSS account vide no. 3400141144 for Rs. 2,00,000/-.
They further contended that Complainant at the time of each and every investment in SCSS scheme mentioned that she carefully understood the SCSS rules 2004. But Complainant intensionally violated the aforesaid rules. They prayed for dismissal of the case.
TRIAL
During Trial Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief. O.Ps filed questionnaire and Complainant gave answer.
O.Ps filed affidavit-in-chief. Complainant filed questionnaire and O.Ps gave answer.
DOCUMENTS
Complainant filed copy of following documents which were verified at the time of hearing argument:-
BNA
Complainant filed BNA. O.Ps filed BNA.
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps at length. Perused the petition of complaint, W/V filed by the O.Ps, affidavit-in-chief filed by Complainant, questionnaire filed by the O.Ps, answers filed by the Complainant, affidavit – in – chief filed by the O.Ps., questionnaire filed by the Complainant, answer filed by the O.Ps, BNA filed by the Complainant, BNA filed by the O.Ps, documents filed by the Complainant and documents filed by the O.Ps.
It is admitted position that Complainant invested different quantum of amount in the different post office and six accounts of Senior Citizen Savings Scheme were prepared in the name of Complainant. We find that Complainant invested total amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- in the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme.
During hearing Complainant produced the copy of said scheme which was introduced with effect from 02/08/2004 as per the said scheme maximum amount of investment is Rs. 15,00,000/- but Complainant invested the amount more than Rs. 15,00,000/- in different accounts i.e. amounting to Rs. 22,40,000/-.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./.37/2022
It is the plea of the Complainant that she did not know the limit of the said scheme but on perusal of copy of proposal forms which were filled up by Complainant at the time of every investment, we find that she stated that she by knowing the necessary rules investing the money in the Senior Citizen Savings Scheme. Moreover Complainant being the senior citizen and responsible person of the society filled up the proposal form at the time of investment. So, it is not believable that Complainant did not know the maximum limit of the scheme namely Senior Citizen Savings Scheme.
On perusal of documents filed by the O.P at the time of hearing of argument we find that Sub Postmaster of Birati Sub Post Office by issuing letters requested the Complainant on different occasions to settle the matter and also requested her to submit two Senior Citizen Savings Scheme vide account no. 3347452693 and 3400141144 amounting to Rs. 5,40,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- but Complainant avoided the same, the reason best known to her.
We find from the record that lastly Complainant submitted the aforesaid two accounts for the amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- before the S.P.M, Birati and they closed the same but at the time of closing of aforesaid two amount which were invested under Senior Citizen Savings Scheme deducted sum of Rs. 1,14,280/- and Rs. 41,109/- alleging the term ‘Adjustment’.
We have stated earlier that Complainant invested extra amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- more than the ceiling limit of Rs. 15,00,000/- and aforesaid investment of Rs. 7,40,000/- will not definitely come under Senior Citizen Savings Scheme.
So the Opposite Parties can make the necessary adjustment i.e. recovery of high rate of interest which they already paid in favour of the Complainant and we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the Opposite Parties at the time of closing of aforesaid two accounts amounting to Rs. 7,40,000/- which were excess investment over the permissible limit.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has not able to established her grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Complainant is not entitled to reliefs as per her prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/37/2022 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Parties.
Complainant is directed to pay the aforesaid cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in favour of the Opposite Parties within 45 days from this day failing which Opposite Parties shall have liberty to recover the same from the Complainant by way of execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
C.C. No. 37/2022
Order No.15
Dated. 11.07.2024
Today is fixed for final order / judgment.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present. Ld. Advocate for the all O.P is present.
Final Order / Judgment is kept with the record. As per Final Order / Judgment.
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/37/2022 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to be paid by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Parties.
Complainant is directed to pay the aforesaid cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) in favour of the Opposite Parties within 45 days from this day failing which Opposite Parties shall have liberty to recover the same from the Complainant by way of execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
