Orissa

Cuttak

CC/299/2023

Malati Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superitendent of Post Offices - Opp.Party(s)

B K Pradhan & associates

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.299/2023

 

Smt. Malati Pradhan,

W/o: Bisikesan Pradhan,

Plot No.1D/329,Sector-10,CDA,

P.O:Markat Nagar,P.S:Phase-II,

Sector-11,Dist:Cuttack,PIN-753014.                          ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        Superintendent of Post Offices,

Cuttack City Division,

Cantonment Road,Cuttack-753001.

 

2.        Sub-Post Master,                                                                                                                                                                                        At/Po-Markat nagar,Sector-7,CDA,                                                                                                                                                                   Cuttack-753014

 

3.        Branch Manager,

SBI,Bidanasi Branch,

Sector-6,CDA,P.O:Markat Nagar,

Dist: Cuttack-753014.                                      … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    01.09.2023

Date of Order:  29.02.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Prpadhan,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 2:                 None.

For the O.P No.3         :         Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President          

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had opened a Savings Bank Account on 4.9.2015 in the State Bank of India,Bidanasi Branch and had complied the KYC as required on 29.9.2017.  On 4.9.2021, the complainant had deposited an A/c payee cheque bearing no.210321 in her bank amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on SBI,Satyam Complex,Radha Rani Sinha Road,Bhagalpur,Bihar.  On 20.9.2021, the complainant could know that an amount of Rs.177/- has been debited from her account on 17.9.2021.  She alongwith her husband had visited her bank and had met O.P no.3, the Branch Manager of her Bank.  She was informed by O.P no.3 that the cheque was dishonoured for which such amount of Rs.177/- was deducted from her balance.  The said dishonoured cheque and return memo would be sent to her in her home address through registered post by 22.9.2021.  On 16.10.2021, the complainant could ascertain from the Postman that no such letter was sent to her.  It is for the said reason; the complainant had made a representation to O.P no.3 in that context which she had sent through speed post on 18.10.2021 and had also sent a copy of the same to the General Manager of S.B.I at Bhubaneswar since because neither the dishonoured cheque nor the return memo was sent to her.  The complainant had filed a case against the O.P and the General Manager of SBI vide C.C no.106 of 2022 wherein O.P no.3 had submitted written version on 26.8.2022 mentioning therein that the dishonoured cheque and the return memo were sent to the complainant by speed post on 17.9.21 which were returned back on 18.9.21 with remark as “door locked” and on 21.9.21 with remark as “no such addressee”.  The complainant has thus come up with her case demanding Rs.7,00,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and a sum of s.10,000/- towards cost of her litigation.

          Together with her complaint petition, she has filed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have been set exparte vide order dt.1.11.2023.

          However, O.P no.3 has contested this case and has filed it’s written version wherein it is mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  According to O.P no.3, the cheque presented by the complainant was dishonoured after it being sent for clearance for which the dishonoured cheque and the return memo were sent to the complainant as per the address as provided but those were returned back being undelivered.  Though earlier the complainant had filed C.C. no.106 of 2022 in this context, the same was dismissed.  As such, it is prayed through written version by O.P no.3 to dismiss the present complaint petition also.

          Th complainant has filed her evidence affidavit in this case but the seme when perused, it is noticed to be a reiteration of the averments of her complaint petition and nothing else.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, written notes of submissions from both sides as well as the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant had presented a cheque worth of Rs.7,00,000/- which was dishonoured and a sum of Rs.177/- was debited from her account which was with O.P no.3.  O.P no.3 has urged to have sent the dishonoured cheque and the cheque return memo through speed post to the complainant but inspite of attempts made to that effect, on 18.9.21 the letter had returned as there was an endorsement that the door was locked and on 21.9.21 the same was returned with endorsement that no such addressee in this plot.  It is the contention of the complainant that when she and her inmates reside in her house and when for the first occasion the Postman had endorsed “door locked”, how could the said Postman make an endorsement that “no such addressee in this plot?”  This Commission is to find out if there was deficiency of service in any manner and it is not the duty of this Commission to locate the erring person for which action can be generated as against such erring person.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 have not preferred to contest this case.  The Postman who had actually gone to the site to deliver the letter on both the occasions, is not made a party in this case.  The endorsement as made by the Postman on the first occasion that the door was locked cannot be disbelieved in any manner.  The subsequent remark also cannot be disputed since because practically the Postman while going to deliver a letter asks the inmates to call upon the addressee and whatever the reply is given by the inmates of the house to him, he endorses the same in his remark on the letter.  There is nothing on the record to convince this Commission that there was any previous rivalry, grudge or animosity at any point of time in between the Postman of the locality and the inmates of the house of the complainant or with the complainant.  In absence of such, this Commission cannot jump into a conclusion that the Postman concerned had abruptly made callous remarks on the letter sent to the complainant by O.P no.3 without practically going to the spot.  Moreso, as it appears, the complainant had already filed a case bearing no.106 of 2022 which was dismissed.  Keeping the facts and circumstances of the present case in mind, while analysing the evidence as available in this case record, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that there is absolutely no deficiency in service noticed on the part of any of the O.Ps here in this case as alleged by the complainant.  Hence, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no. I & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P no.3 & exparte against O.Ps no.1 & 2  and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

             Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of February,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member