Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/614/2012

R.Devaki - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy Sub Post Master,Post Office & another - Opp.Party(s)

T.G.Balachandran

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                   BEFORE           Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

F.A.NO. 614/2012

(Against order in C.C. No.370/2010

DCDRF, Chennai(South) Dated  17.9.2012)

DATED THIS THE  2^nd    DAY OF  SEPTEMBER 2015

Mrs. R.Devaki,

W/o V.Rajasekaran

Plot No. 499, 18^th street

IV Sector, K.K.Nagar

Chennai 600 078                                                                                            ..Appellant/complainant

                                                                               Vs

1.The Deputy Sub Post Master

Royapettah post office

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office

Chennai Central Division

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017                                                                           ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant   :                  Mr.T.G.Balachandran

Counsel for Respondents/opp.parties     :                      M/s K.Akilandeswari    

     

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum partly allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South)  in CC.No. 370/2010 dated 17.9.2012.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.8.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai(South), this commission made the following order.

 

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       The unsatisfied complainant is the appellant.

2.        One Mrs. Priya purchased POMIS  No 112940 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 8.8.2003 from the 1^st opposite party subsequently it was added with the complainant’s name as joint holder on 11.5.2006 and interest was given credit to the SB Account No. 2682109 with effect from 8.6.2006 to 8.8.2009 and the nomination also made in her husband name. when the amount was became matured, she approached for closing of account through S.A.S Agent Balaji Rajan, it was turned out and demanding the presence of original depositor S.Priya and thereby alleging deficiency, a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming for refund of Rs.3 lakhs towards maturity amount with 10% bonus of Rs.30,000/- and 12% p.a interest, further till payment, Rs.15,000/- cost for mental agony and unfair trade practice, Rs. 10,000/- as cost.

3.     The opposite party denied the allegation before the District Forum contending since the records relating to insertion of complainant’s name in the SO of Royapettah was wrongly made without authorizations and for the maturity amount to prove the genuineness person of original depositor was insisted and after an enquiry by the Department pending complaint, it was permitted to disperse the amount to the complainant and thereby and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.          On the basis of the both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum dismissed the complaint accepting the version of the opposite parties.

5.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the details of complainant and non-availability of SB 3 card, consent letter of the original holder, itself amounts to deficiency in service and there was no reply for the legal notice issued to the opposite party and they had not followed the legal procedures in obtaining the consent letter from the original holder and after Ex.B.10 the foreclosure made by the 2^nd opposite party is unwarranted, hence appeal to be allowed.

6.        We have heard both side arguments and care fully considered the materials in this regard.

7.       It is the admitted case of opposite party that the complainant’s name subsequently added as joint holder in the POMIS account originally opened by Mrs. S.Priya and during the year 2003 and subsequently in 2006, the complainant name was added as joint account holder and the interest also given credit monthly to the SB account of complainant Mrs. Devaki, when the complainant approached for claiming maturity amount after verifying the signatures of the complainant of original holder who had given authorization letter as per Ex.A.3,  along with pass book, the 2^nd opposite party instead of honouring the same raised the doubt about the genuineness of the claim and in view of the legal notice and correspondence addressed to higher authorities under Ex.B.3, Ex.B.5, B.8, B.9 and ascertained the genuineness of the claim when the 2^nd opposite party effected the subsequent entries relating to the insertion of the name of complainant as joint holder on the basis of consent letter given by the original holder and without obtaining specimen signature of the complainant and SB 3 card as per rule and now contending the 2^nd opposite party is not authorized to do so and also no records are traceable as per correspondence under Ex.B.8 and after addressing the senior Superintendent of post office, Mumbai for verification and enquiry with the original holder who is now residing at Mumbai,  Ex.B.10 was came to be issued permitting the 1^st opposite party to close the account and to disperse the amount to the complainant would establish the deficiency of service on their part and the District Forum failed to note the circumstances under which the 1^st opposite party dealt the matter of the complainant and when the complainant’s name was added as a joint holder during 2006 itself and monthly interest also was given credit to the SB Account of the complainant. On the basis of the same and with the verification of consent letter given by the original holder Mrs.Priya as per Ex.A.3, the 1^st opposite party ought to have dispersed the amount to the complainant after following the procedures and the District Forum without noticing all these details erroneously dismissed the complaint which is liable to be set aside accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is allowed , by setting aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.No  370/2010 dated 17.9.2012, and complaint is allowed.

            The opposite parties are directed to refund the POMIS amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs ) with accrued bonus of Rs.30,000/- as on maturity date along with 6% p.a. interest from the date of maturity till date of payment to the complainant after receiving the pass book and obtaining SB 3 card without insisting any further letter or presence of original holder Mrs.Priya, and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant as litigation expenses.   

              The directions shall be complied within six weeks and the complainant also directed to approach the opposite parties within the period for realization of the amount.     

              No separate order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                              A.K.ANNAMALAI 

  MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER