The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Pratappur Branch, Pratappur, Baliapal, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Post Master General, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.3 is Sri Gunakar Mandal, Post Master, Pratappur Sub-Post Office, Pratappur, Baliapal, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is a Savings Bank account holder bearing A/c No.11504762217 under the O.P No.1. The Complainant has deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.3,645/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five) only issued by the Govt. of Odisha under “FAILIN SAHAYATA” vide cheque No.194619 in his above said account before the O.P No.1 on dtd.23.02.2016. But, the cheque amount was not credited to his account and when he asked the matter to the O.P No.1 after 3 to 4 months of his deposit, the O.P No.1 replied that the Bank has returned the said cheque with return memo to the depositor/ account holder through Registered post. Thereafter, the Complainant asked the O.P No.3 about the registered letter, but the O.P No.3 did not pay any heed to it. So, the Complainant informed the matter to the Zonal Post Master, Jaleswar on dtd.17.12.2016, but he did not listen to it. Then the Complainant on dtd.02.05.2017 has applied for information about the said cheque through R.T.I before the O.P No.1 and the O.P No.1 on dtd.03.06.2017 has replied that the Bank has returned the said cheque on dtd.04.05.2016 vide postal receipt No.676328424. After getting such information from the O.P No.1, the Complainant again asked the matter to O.P No.3, but he did not pay any heed to the matter. Thus, the Complainant on dtd.11.08.2017 has applied for information about the said cheque before the O.P No.2 and the O.P No.2 on dtd.17.08.2017 has replied that the receipt/ article number provided by the Complainant is not correct. So, the Complainant served notice to the O.P No.1 through registered post with A.D regarding wrong number of postal receipt and where about of the cheque. The O.P No.1 has received the said notice on dtd.06.09.2017, but till today he never took any step. The Complainant has also informed the matter to the G.M, S.B.I Local Head Office, Bhubaneswar on dtd.23.06.2017 through R.T.I appeal, but the said appeal has been rejected by the authority on dtd.24.07.2017 as the same information was provided by O.P No.1 to the Complainant. Thus, due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.Ps, the Complainant has been harassed mentally, physically and financially, for which he has filed this case in the Forum. Cause of action to file this case arose on 06.09.2017. The Complainant has prayed for directing the O.Ps for payment of the above said cheque amount of Rs.3,645/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five) only with interest along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denied on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that he has returned the impugned cheque through Registered post vide R.L No.RO676328424IN dtd.04.05.2016 and the registered article containing the impugned cheque has been delivered by the Office of O.P No.3 on the same date to the Complainant himself vide postal delivery record maintained by the O.P No.3. In this connection, the O.P No.3 has also provided a copy of acknowledgement receipt showing delivery of the above regd. article containing the impugned cheque. Further, the fact of sending the impugned cheque by Regd. post to the Complainant has also been duly recorded in the postage Book dispatch register of O.P No.1-Bank. The said impugned cheque of the Complainant along with several other cheques of same nature of different Parties were also returned unpaid on the same date vide cheque returned register. Thus, the O.P No.1-Bank has not committed any deficiency of services as the impugned cheque has been duly returned through postal services and the Complainant himself has acknowledged the same. Hence, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.Ps No.2 & 3 through the Standing Govt. Counsel denied on the point of maintainability and Consumer. The O.Ps No.2 & 3 have further submitted that the Complainant has not hired any services of these O.Ps in this case and these O.Ps are no way concerned about the speed post article containing a cheque, which was dispatched by the O.P No.1-S.B.I. The services rendered by the Post Office are merely statutory in nature, but not contractual. The Registered letter bearing No.RO676328424IN issued by the O.P No.1-Bank on dtd.04.05.2016 addressed to the Complainant has been booked by the O.P No.3 on the same date and also delivered to the correct addressee i.e. the Complainant on the same date. The delivery slip containing the signature of the Complainant in token of receipt of RL No.RO676328424IN, dtd.04.05.2016. So, the O.Ps No.2 & 3 are neither liable nor responsible for non-credit of the cheque amount of the Complainant as the account lies in the branch of the O.P No.1. When the article in question has already been delivered on dtd.04.05.2016 and the Complainant has also received the same on the same date, then question of not responding by the O.P No.3 does not arise. As the Complainant has furnished incorrect information to the O.P No.2, accordingly the O.P No.2 has replied the Complainant that the article number provided by him is incorrect. The actual, correct and complete article number is RO676328424IN, but the Complainant has mentioned the number as 676328424, which is incorrect. After receipt of copy of notice, the same information was sent to the Inspector of Posts, Jaleswar West Sub-Division to conduct a detailed enquiry and to submit the enquiry report for taking further action. Accordingly, the Inspector of Posts, Jaleswar West Sub-Division on dtd.26.02.2018 has reported that the Regd. letter bearing No. RO676328424IN addressed to the Complainant, has been delivered to the Complainant on dtd.04.05.2016 and the Complainant has neither signed for verification of his signature on delivery slip nor given any written statement to complete the enquiry. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps No.2 & 3 as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, the case of the Complainant being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Neither the O.Ps No.2 & 3 nor the Standing Govt. Counsel was present at the time of hearing of this case.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after deposit of the required cheque for an amount of Rs.3,645/- (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five) only vide cheque No.194619 in his account before the O.P No.1-Bank and when he did not get the cheque amount, he approached the O.P No.1-Bank, who did not pay any response to him. Thereafter, the Complainant has obtained the information about the said cheque through R.T.I vide Annexure-5 from the O.P No.1-Bank that the Bank has returned the said cheque vide postal receipt No.676328424 on dtd.04.05.2016. Then he approached the postal authority and when he failed due to supply of incomplete receipt number, he issued the Advocate notice and then approached the Forum for relief regarding payment of the cheque amount with interest along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1-Bank that the required cheque has been returned to the Complainant through Registered post vide R.L No.RO676328424IN, dtd.04.05.2016 and the same has been delivered by the Office of O.P No.3 on the same date to the Complainant. But, the Complainant is falsely demanding the cheque amount now and has suppressed the material facts and has not come to the Forum in clean hands. The O.Ps No.2 & 3 though appeared and filed their w/v in this case, but they did not take part in argument. However, according to them, the postal Registered letter bearing No.RO676328424IN has been duly delivered to the Complainant on dtd.04.05.2016, but on further query, the Complainant did not co-operate the postal authority and did not give his signature to confirm regarding receipt of the same. The Annexure-R/3 discloses about receipt of the same registered letter by the Complainant on dtd.04.05.2016. Though the Complainant has knowledge about it after filing of the written versions by the O.Ps, he remained silent and has not taken any steps to decline that the signature available on the postal delivery slip vide Annexure-R/3 does not belong to him. So, he has not come to the Forum in clean hands. However, the Bank authority has committed a mistake/ irregularity by not supplying the complete postal registered number to the Complainant through R.T.I. Further, the O.P No.1-Bank has not disclosed the Forum about the reason of returning of the same cheque to the Complainant. Normally, a cheque should be encashed unless there is any defect. So, the O.P No.1-Bank has committed mistakes/ irregularities in such two respects. However, would has been the Complainant filed the returned cheque though already received could have been disclosed the real fact. Further, the Complainant has filed the xerox copy of his Bank account passbook up to dtd.24.01.2013 vide Annexure-1 and he has filed the case on dtd.08.01.2018. So, due to non-filing of up-to-date passbook, the correct position regarding deposit of cheque amount subsequently could not be ascertained. In view of Section-6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, the liability of the Government of India for loss or mis-delivery of insured articles and loss in the course of transmission by post is not contractual, but purely statutory in nature.  

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I am in the opinion that the Complainant has not come to this Forum in clean hands and has also suppressed the material facts. He has very much knowledge at the time of filing of this case as disclosed from the Annexure-2 about the correct and complete number of the registered postal letter. So, in these circumstances, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 6th day of March, 2020 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.