SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS, PRSIDENT:-

                          Deficiency in service in respect of non-release of recurring deposits are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.

2.                  Complaint, in brief reveals that, complainant is a retired headmaster opened a recurring deposit at Sub-Post Office,Karilopatna bearing A/C No.19670  on dtd. 12.11.2010 with a monthly payment of Rs.1000/- per month for five(5) years. The complainant was paying his monthly deposits regularly upto dtd. 27.07.2012  in toto deposited Rs.21,000/- On dtd. 28.08.12 when complainant went to office of Op No.1 to deposit his monthly dues, the Sub-Postmaster refused to accept the amount and told that the then Sub-Postmaster has misappropriated some amount from the cash of Sub-Post office and complainant was advised to withdraw the amount after completion of three years. Accordingly on dtd. 28.12.2013 complainant went to the office of OP No.1,filed the requisite forms for withdrawal of deposited amount Rs.21,000/-. The Sub-postmaster OP No.1 took 3 days time for disburse of the amount. But, the said deposited amount was not disbursed to the complainant, for which complainant met and requested OP no.2 & 3 for release of the deposited amount but all went in vain, finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint with prayer for issue direction to the Ops for early release of the deposited amount and compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and financial loss and cost of litigation.         

 3.          Being noticed Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. Md. Nayeem filed written version into the dispute partly denying the allegations of the complainant and submitting the facts it is stated that complainant is a pass book holder under monthly recurring deposit and an amount  of  Rs.21,000/-  in  kept  with  the  complainant’s  pass book bearingNo.19670 till July,2012. No deposit was made in this account after July,2012. It is also stated that Ex.Sub-Postmaster of Karilopatna namely Sri Arun Kumar Mohanty has committed fraud on the depositors account of Karilopatna branch for which a C.B.I. Case RL 20(A) 12 is going against the Ex.SPM. After due verification of the accounts when it was found that no amount has been misappropriated from complainant’s account, accordingly the steps were taken to disburse the RD andRs.21,000/- on dtd.29.05.14 with uptodate interest. As there was an investigation in relation to the deposits of Karilopatna Sub-Post office disbursing of the amount took some time which is not intentional but under compulsion. Therefore, the complaint petition is not substainable in the eye of laws and liable to be dismissed.                        

 4.              Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties. It is an admitted fact that complainant was having a R.D. account on the OP No.1 Branch commencing from the date of dtd. 12.11.2010 with a monthly deposit of Rs.1000/-. It is also admitted that till July,2013 complainant has deposited Rs.21,000/- in his R.D. account and same was not withdrawn till filing of the present dispute due to misappropriation by Ex.SPM, Karilopatna.

                   It  is further submitted that on verification when it is found that amount on complainant’s R.D. account remain intact inspite of the misappropriation by Ex.SPM the Ops have taken steps and disburse the amount of Rs.21,000/- alongwith uptodate interest to the complainant on dtd. 29.05.2014. It is observed from the complaint petition that on dtd. 28.12.13 complainant deposited the final withdrawal slip for encashment of the amount and as per the version of Ops the disbursement was effected on dtd. 29.05.14. Hence, it is clear that it took five months for release of the amount. As it is the plea of the Ops that as there was an misappropriation by Ex.SPM of  the  Karilopatna  Sub-post  office  and  a  CBI  case  is  under trial against Ex.SPM, such inordinate delay occurs for disbursement which is not intentional. We agree with the stands of Ops and further when the amount is disbursed to the complainant with up-to-date interest, the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service. But on bare perusal it is seen that such steps are taken by Ops after filing of the consumer complaint, hence, complainant deserves cost of the litigation.                                                                                                                                           

                                                         O R D E R

                            As per our observations reflected above, it is directed that Ops will pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand)only as cost of litigation. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which 9 per cent interest will be charged for the delayed period.

                        With this order the  complaint is allowed  in part with cost.                                 

                      Pronounced in the open Court, this the 31st day of December,2014.  

                                       I, agree.

                                       Sd/-                                  Sd/-

                                      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT