1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her father had opened an R.D. Account of Rs.500/- under 5 years scheme in her name with OP.4 w.e.f. March, 2011 vide A/c. No.723548 and deposited Rs.31, 000/- as on 17.2.2016 but when she approached the OP.4 on 13.9.2016 for receipt of maturity amount, the OP.4 stated that he cannot refund Rs.31, 000/- as the computer entry says the deposit of Rs.25, 000/- only in the said account.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.31, 000/- towards deposit along with interest as per R.D. account till realization and to pay Rs.54, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter through their SSPOs admitting the R.D. account vide No.723548 opened in the name of the complainant with OP.4 on 01.3.2011 and deposited a sum of Rs.31, 000/- under the said R.D.  It is contended that the department of Posts is on the way of computerization and also is facing stumbling blocks due to limited number of technical persons deployed for the purpose.       It is further contended that during migration of manual data of B. Singhpur SPO to Core Banking Solution 2 transactions dt.25.5.2016 for Rs.3000/- and dt.17.2.2016 for Rs.3000/- with default fine erroneously left behind pertaining to the accounts of the complainant showing accrued balance of Rs.25, 000/-.  The OPs also contended that on receipt of notice from the Forum, OP.2 directed the Inspector of Post Offices, Nabarangpur for an enquiry and on receipt of enquiry report, they directed OP.4 on 16.2.2017 to close the account and pay the maturity amount to the complainant with copy to the complainant but the complainant did not receive the amount stating that she will receive the amount along with the money spent towards consumer case.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant has filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, opening of R.D. accounts vide No.723548 under 5 years scheme with OP No.4 in the name of minor child by her father on 01.03.2011 @ Rs.500/- per month is an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that she deposited Rs.31, 000/- as on 17.2.2016 in the said account and approached the OP.4 on 13.9.2016 to get the maturity value but the OP.4 stated that the computer entry shows that Rs.25, 000/- has been deposited and hence he cannot pay Rs.31, 000/- to the complainant.

5.                     The Ops in their counter stated that the Department of Posts is on the way of computerization and modernization of its post office business and during migration of manual data of B. Singhpur SPO to core banking system, 2 transactions dt.25.5.2016 and 17.2.2016 of Rs.3000/- each of the RD accounts of the complainant were erroneously left behind by the technical persons and hence the OP.4 being duty bound had expressed its inability to effect maturity value.

6.                     We have gone through the copy of pass book entries filed by the complainant and found that Rs.31, 000/- has been deposited as on 17.2.2016.  The Ops have also admitted that due to missing entries, 2 deposits @ Rs.3000/- have been left behind.  After due enquiry, the OP.2 has directed the OP.2 on 16.2.2017 to close the accounts and pay the maturity value to the complainant and the complainant has been requested on 04.3.2017 to receive the amount but the complainant did not agree to receive the amount demanding expenses incurred towards filing of consumer case.

7.                     In the above circumstances, there is no dispute that the complainant had deposited Rs.31, 000/- with OP No.4 in respect of RD account but due to nonpayment of full amount the complainant has filed this case before this Forum.  Naturally, the complainant will sue the OPs in a proper court of law when he/she is not getting his/her legitimate claim.  The Ops also failed to settle the claim of the complainant till filing of the present case and as such committed delay in taking necessary steps.  This inaction by the Ops in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service.  In our considered view, as the RD amount after maturity has not been paid, the Ops are to pay the RD interest on the maturity amount till the actual payment to the complainant.  In the peculiar circumstances, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant except a sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of this litigation.  The OP.2 being the local head of OP.4 is also liable for the lapses.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 2 & 4 being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay the maturity amount under the RD account No.723548 as on the date of maturity and to further pay interest on the maturity amount as applicable to RD account from the date of maturity till actual payment besides Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)