West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/34/2016

Maloy Kanti Satpathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Post Master, Raghunathpur Sub Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

   

Complaint Case No. 34/2016

 

1. Sri Maloy Kanti Satpathi, S/o Ahindra Kumar Satpathi,
2. Smt. Shreoshi Satpathi, D/o Moloy Kanti Satpathi,
3. Sri Indranil Satpathi, S/o Maloy Kanti Satpathi,
4. Smt. Swapna Satpathi, W/o Maloy Kanti Satpathi, All resident of Raghunathpur, (Near Youth Club), P.O. & P.S. Jhargram, District – Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                            …………..………..……Complainants.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Sub Post Master, Raghunathpur Sub Post Office, P.O. Raghunathpur, P.S. Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721507,
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Medinipur Division, At Medinipur, P.O. Medinipur, Dist. Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721101

                                                                        ………………....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr., Sukumar Parya, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -06/09/2016

                                

ORDER

                        Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainants opened 7 joint MIS accounts in their names vide (1) A/c no. 21298 of Rs.76,500/- dated 08/04/2013 in the names of Sreoshi Satpathi, Niladri Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi, (2)A/c no.21268 of Rs.96,000/- dated 28/02/2013 in the names of

Contd………………P/2

 

( 2 )

Indranil Satpathi, Sreoshi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi, (3) A/c no.21074 of Rs.96,000 dated 08/06/2012 in the names of Swapna Satpathi, Indranil Satpathi and Sreoshi Satpathi, (4) A/c no 20365 of Rs.48,000/- dated 18/10/2010 in the names of Swapna Satpathi, Indranil Satpathi and Maloy Kanti Satpathi, (5) A/c no.21318 of  Rs.96,000/- dated 08/06/2013 in the names of Maloy Kanti Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi, (6) A/c no.21565 of Rs.96,000/- dated 28/04/2014 in the names of Indranil Satpathi, Sreoshi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi (7) A/c no.21496 of Rs.96,000/- dated 28/02/2014 in the names of Swapna Satpathi, Indranil Satpathi and Sreoshi Satpathi and total value of those seven MIS  is Rs.6,04,500/-.  After receiving the money, the opposite party no.1 issued separate 7 joint MIS account in the names of the complainants.  The complainants also opened a joint account in the same post office being no.21565 for receiving the monthly interest and they also used to receive monthly interest from those 7 MIS joint accounts up to 20/05/2014. On 13/05/2014, the complainant no.1 came to know that actual account defers from the record of the post office i.e. the opposite party no.1.  Therefore the complainant no.1 submitted a complaint  before the Head Office at Jhargram and came to know that there is no money in 5 MIS account and only Rs.45,000/- and Rs.32,000/- have been lying as balance amount in other two MIS accounts.  The complainant no.1 deposited xerox copies of those 7 MIS joint account before the Departmental Inspector of Post Office and he seized the 7 above mentioned MIS account on 28/06/2014.  The complainant no.1 thereafter sent a written representation to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Medinipur Division for realization of the total MIS account and he informed the complainant no.1 that Prima facie defalcation of Government/public money has been detected at Raghunathpur post office and a thorough investigation is going on.  After receiving the said information, the complainants again sent a written complaint before the public grievance portal for realization of total money of 7 joint MIS account and as per instruction of the Director of Public Grievance Department, the complainant submitted written statement about those 7 MIS account but till now opposite party did not disburse the total money of 7 joint MIS.  On 09/02/2016, Assistance Director of Postal Services III, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-12 informed the complainant no.1 to submit original documents but the postal department received the Xerox copies of 7 MIS account on 28/06/2014 for enquiry but the opposite party intentionally made no payment of those MIS account. For such legal acts of the postal employee, the complainants have suffered irreparable loss and injury and such type of act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint, praying for

Contd………………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

directing the opposite parties to return back total money of Rs.6,04,500/-  with penal interest and for an award of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental shock, pain and agony.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection.

                  Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that out of those 7 MIS accounts claimed to have been opened by the complainants at Raghunathpur Sub Post Office, only two MIS account were actually opened in their names.  As per office record of Raghunathpur Sub Post Office by real position/status of opening of MIS  accounts with reference to the account nos. cited by the complainant is as follows:-

1. MIS  A/c no. 21298 of  Rs.45,000/- dated 19/04/2013 is standing in the name of Sritanu Pal;

 2.  A/c no.21268  of  Rs.2,10,000/- dated 23/02/2013 is standing in the  name of Mrinal Kanti Kar,

3. A/c no.21074 of Rs.99,000 dated 16/06/2012 is standing in the names of Nisha & Banalata Banerjee,

4. A/c no 20365 of Rs.45,000/- dated 29/11/2010 is standing in the names of Bhaswati & Joyotiranjan Bhowmik,

 5. A/c no.21318 of Rs.21,000/- dated 07/06/2013 is standing in the name of Radhapada Das.

6. A/c no.21565 of Rs.45,000/- dated 28/04/2014 is standing in the names of Indranil Satpathi, Sreoshi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi

7. A/c no.21498 of Rs.39,000/- dated 28/02/2014 is standing in the names  of Indranil Satpathi, Sreoshi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi.

                           So according to  the O.Ps, total value of investment by the complainants in the Post Office of the opposite party,  MIS A/c being nos.21565 and 21498 comes to Rs.(45,000/- + 39,000/-) = Rs.94,000/- instead of Rs.6,04,500/- as wrongly claimed by the complainants.  Apart from those two accounts, another MIS account  being no.21319 is standing in the names of Indranil Satpathi, Sreoshi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi which was opened on 08/06/2013 at Raghunathpur Post Office with initial investment of Rs.49,500/-.  Apart from  those 3 MIS account,  no other MIS account was opened in the names of the complainants.  Other 5 MIS accounts being nos.21298, 21268, 21074, 20365 & 21318 as alleged by the complainants are standing at Raghunathpur post office in the names of account holders other than the complainants.  The complainants submitted photocopies of

Contd………………P/4

 

( 4 )

some documents but those photocopies did not match with the office records in any manner.  So those documents are primarily treated as fake documents.  In spite of request, the complainants did not produce the original documents probably realizing that those documents are fake and purportedly prepared by other persons.  On receipt of information from the complainants, the opposite parties  assured them that their claims, if found genuine after necessary enquiry, would be entertained as some instances of defalcation of public money at Raghunathpur S.O. prima facie detected at that time but the complainants never cooperated  with the enquiry officer.  It is stated that no enquiry can effectively be carried out on the strength of photocopies of documents especially when those photocopies do not in any way match the corresponding Post Office record.  The complainants were therefore rightly asked to produce original of the photocopies based on which they have staked their claims but the complainants consciously avoided handing over the original documents with a view to cast the blame on Post Office for delay in settlement of their claims based on some fake documents.  The complainants are however entitled to draw whatever investment reflected in Post Office record subject to production of documents in original in support of their claim. Such being the position,   the complainants did not cooperate with the enquiring authority and they  refused to give any written statement before the enquiry officer and also refused to part with the original documents which are highly required for carrying out further investigation into the matter.  As a result, the department is not in a position to make payment to the complainants in respect of MIS accounts nos. 21298, 21268, 21074, 20365 & 21318 which are standing in the names of other holders other than these complainants.  The opposite parties therefore claim dismissal of the complaint.

 

Point for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

      For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

            At the very outset, it is to be stated here that in this case neither the

Contd………………P/5

 

( 5 )

complainants nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary but they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case.

              According to the complainants, they opened 7 joint MIS account in their names being A/C nos. 21298, 21268, 21074, 20365, 21318, 21565 & 21496 on 08/4/2013, 28/02/2013, 8-06/2012, 18/10/2010/ 08/06/2013, 28/04/2014 & 28/02/2014 respectively, the details of which alongwith amount have been mentioned in para-2 of the petition of complaint. Further according to the complainants after receiving the money, the opposite party no.1 issued 7 joint MIS accounts in their names.  On 13/05/2014, the complainants came to know that the actual account defers from the record of the post office of opposite party no.1 and therefore the complainants submitted a complaint before the Jhargram Post Office and came to know that there is no money in 5 MIS account out of those 7 MIS accounts.  They also made written representation before the Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Medinipur Division for realization of the total MIS amount but till today no payment has been made by the opposite party and they intentionally delaying for payment of the total amount of those 7 MIS accounts.  It is therefore alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite party as made out in their written objection that after receiving such complaint they found from the office record of Raghunathpur Sub Division that out of those 7 MIS, account nos. 21298, 21268, 21074, 20365 & 21318 are standing in the names of Sritanu Pal, Mrinal Kanti Kar, Nisha Banerjee & Banamala Banerjee, Bhaswati & Joyotiranjan Bhowmik and Radhapada Das respectively and the other two accounts being nos.21565 and 21496 are standing in the names of the complainants namely Indranil Satpathi, Shreyasi Satpathi and Swapna Satpathi.  Since those 5 MIS accounts in question are standing in the names of other account holders other than the complainants as revealed from their office record, so the opposite party asked the complainants for production of their original documents for enquiry but the complainants never cooperated with the enquiry officer in carrying out the enquiry.  It is further alleged that the complainants made their claims on the strength of some photo copies of those documents which are prima facie  fake. So there is crucial need for investigation with reference to the so called documents for carrying out further investigation of the matter but the complainants for the reasons best known to them have refused to extent necessary cooperation with the enquiry officer and also refused to part with the original documents based on which they have

Contd………………P/6

 

( 6 )

staked their claims.  Further according to the opposite parties the complainants are however entitled to draw whatever investment reflected in the post office record subject to production of documents in original in support of their claims. Since the complainants did not submit the original MIS accounts and the passbooks thereof, so the department is not in a position to make payment to the complainants in respect of those 5 MIS account being nos.  21298, 21268, 21074, 20365 & 21318 which apparently belong to the depositors other than the complainants.  Opposite parties have therefore stated that they have no deficiency in service on their part.

              Now the question arises as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties regarding payment of the disputed MIS accounts.  In support of their case, the opposite parties have filed attested copies of MIS opening form and attested xerox copies in respect of those 5 MIS accounts standing in the names of depositors other the complainants.  From those documents, we find that those 5 MIS accounts are standing in the names of the account holders other than the complainants.  From the savings bank passbook in respect of those 5 disputed MIS accounts, so filed by the complainants, we find that those are standing in the names of the complainants.  In such circumstances, it was the duty of the complainants to produce those savings bank passbooks in respect of those 5 disputed MIS accounts before the enquiry officer for investigation inasmuch as from the office records of the post office, it was found by the opposite parties that those were not standing in the names of the complainants but those are standing in the names of the other account holders.  Admittedly, the complainants did not produce those passbooks before the enquiry officer of the opposite parties.  From the letter dated 30/12/2015 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Medinipur Division as well as from the letter dated 09/12/2016 issued by the Assistant Director of Postal Services-III, South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700012, so filed by the opposite parties, we find that vide those letters, Indranil Satpathi, the complainant no.3 was requested to submit original documents/ pass books for investigation and for settlement of their claims.  Admittedly, the complainants did not submit those documents as requested by those letters by the opposite parties.  We therefore find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties but it was the complainants who did not cooperate with the opposite parties by submitting those MIS passbooks for investigation and for settlements of their claims. Since we find that there is no

Contd………………P/7

 

( 7 )

deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as stated above, so the complainants are not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for in this case.  The petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

 

            All the points are accordingly disposed off against the complainants.

            In the result, the complaint case fails.

                                                          Hence, it is,

Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.34/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                                             Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

           Dictated and Corrected by me

                   Sd/-B. Pramanik.      Sd/- D. Sengupta.  Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.   Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                        President                      Member                       Member                       President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur