Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/72

Smt. Kalpana Biswas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director of postal Service & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. D. Laskar

18 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

    CASE NO:  CC-  72 of 2014

Kalpana Biswas 
W/O- Late Anil Chandra Biswas,
Dakbanglow Road, 
R. K. Pur, Udaipur, 
District- Gomati Tripura.

Presently residing at:

Madhya Badharghat,
Milan Chakra, A.D. Nagar, 
Agartala, West Tripura.        .................Complainant.

         ______VERSUS______

           1. The Director,
Postal Service, 
Agartala, 
West Tripura,

           2. The Post Master , 
R. K. Pur Head Post Office, 
Udaipur, Gomati District.

           3. Smt. Bina Das(Agent),
W/O- Sri Apurba Das,
Chhanbon,  
Udaipur, Gomati District.         ............Opposite Parties.
            

 

                    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant         : Sri Debasish Laskar,
                  Advocate. 
                           
For the O.Ps No.1 and 2     : Sri Sujit Kumar Banerjee,
                  the Central Govt. Counsel, 
                  High Court of Tripura, 
                  assisted by
                  Sri Sushanta Sekhar Datta,
                  Advocate.
 
For the O.P. No.3        : Sri Sujit Chandra Majumdar,
                  Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   16.09.15

J U D G M E N T    
 
        This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Smt. Kalpana Biswas, W/O- Late Anil Chandra Biswas of Dakbanglow Road,  Udaipur, District- Gomati presently residing at Madhya Badharghat, Milan Chakra,  Agartala against the O.Ps, namely The Director, Postal Services, Agartala and 2 others over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.         The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant had invested money in Post Office Monthly Income Scheme at R.K. Pur Head Post Office jointly with her husband late Anil Chandra Biswas in 4 number of joint accounts bearing nos. 13031 - 13034 and another 4 number of single accounts in her name bearing nos- 14032 - 14035 particulars of which are given in paragraph 2 of the complaint. On being satisfied with the documents furnished by the complainant, the postal staff of the R.K. Pur Head Post Office opened the above mentioned 8 number of MIS accounts by using the same CIN (customer identification number) allotted by the said Post Office and also issued pass books thereof for the total investment of Rs.16,50,000/-. The complainant received monthly interest regularly till 07.12.13. On 20.01.14, the R.K. Pur Head Post Office closed 4 number of MIS accounts bearing nos- 14032 - 14035  after deducting admissible interest without giving any notice to her. It is alleged that at the time of opening the aforesaid MIS accounts, neither the agent (O.P. No.3) nor the Postal staff of R.K. Pur Head Post office informed her as to the maximum limit of investment under MIS scheme. The complainant had withdrawn her monthly interest of all MIS accounts lying in joint and single accounts on the same day of every month continuously for 2 years 9 months from the counter of R.K. Pur Head Post Office. But the Postal staff never raised any question as to the exceeding of maximum limit of investment under MIS Scheme. After closure of the 4 number of accounts as aforesaid, the O.P. R.K. Pur Head Post Office issued 2 cheques bearing nos- 283067 and 283068 dated 20.01.14 for Rs.5,85,000/- and 73,643/- respectively. However, she herself closed 2 number of MIS accounts bearing nos- 13031 and 13032 under threat. It is asserted  that due to negligence of the Postal staff of R. K. Pur Head Post Office she suffered financial loss to the extent of Rs.4,90,000/- approximately besides mental agony and harassment. According to her, the conduct of the O.Ps constituted negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Hence, this complaint.

3.        The complaint was contested by all the O.Ps resisting the claim made by the complainant..
        The O.Ps No.1 and 2, in their joint written objection, have stated, interalia, that the MIS accounts were opened on the basis of declaration furnished by the investor. The complainant is to furnish and execute the written undertaking in the account opening form to the effect that the investments are within prescribed limit as per rule. The excess amount of money invested by the complainant and her husband in joint and single MIS accounts exceeded the maximum limit as prescribed by rule but somehow it escaped the notice of the Postal staff. However, this does not validate the investment made by the complainant in violation of the rules. After closure of the 4 number of MIS accounts, 2 cheques for Rs. 6,58,643/- were sent to the complainant with a forwarding letter dated 21.01.14 wherein the reasons for closing the accounts clearly stated. It is denied that the O.Ps No. 1 and 2 were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant in any manner what so ever. 

4.        The O.P. No.3, the Postal Agent, also filed written objection stating that the complainant invested money in the MIS scheme being satisfied with the terms and conditions stipulated in the rules. She being a postal agent has no role to play in the matter of closure of accounts. According to her, she has has been unnecessarily made party to this proceeding.

5.        In support of the case, the complainant has examined herself as P.W.1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit 1 series - 4 number of Pass Books,
    Exhibit 2 - Letter of the Assistant Post Master, R.K. Pur Head Post Office,
    Exhibit 3 Series- Copies of 2 number of cheques,
    Exhibit 4 series- 4 number of accounts opening form under MIS,
    Exhibit 5- 2 number of joint account pass books.
    
6.        On the other hand, one Sri Subrata Das, Superintendent of H.Q., Office of the Director of Postal Service, Agartala Division has examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:
    Exhibit A Series- 4 number of applications for opening accounts under MIS,
    Exhibit B series- 4 number of accounts closure forms,
    Exhibit C- 2 number of accounts closure forms dated 07.02.14;
    Exhibit D- Copy of letter dated 21.01.14.

        Findings:
7.        The point that would arise for consideration in this proceeding is;
        (i) Whether the O.Ps No. 1 and 2 were negligent and deficient in rendering service to the complainant.
    
8.        We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

9.        The admitted position in this case are follows:
        (I) The complainant and her husband had opened 4 number of MIS joint accounts for Rs. 9,00000/- with the R. k. Pur Head Post Office on 29.01.10;
        (II) The complainant  had opened 4 number of single MIS account for Rs.7,50,000/- with the same post office on 03.03.11; 
        (III) All the aforesaid accounts were opened by using the same CIN (customer identification number) allotted by the post office;
        (IV) The deposit in all accounts taken together exceeding the maximum amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs in single account and 9 lakh in joint account in violation of Rule 4 of Post Office Monthly Income Accounts Scheme, 1987.
        (V) 4 number of single MIS accounts bearing nos- 14032 to 14035 were closed by the Post Office concerned on 20.01.14 for contravention of rules and 2 cheques for Rs. 5,85,000/- infavour of the complainant were issued deducting the interests already paid for the excess amount.

10.        There can not be any dispute on the fact that every citizen has to abide by the rules made by the Central Govt. or the State Government as the case may be. Nobody can deny to obey the rules. The Post Office Monthly Income Account Rules has been framed by the Central Govt. in exercise of the power conferred by the Government, Saving Bank Act, 1873. The complainant may not aware of all the provisions of the said rules. But the Postal staff, who are dealing with such matter, must be well conversant with the rules so that the Govt. may not have to suffer financial loss. For that matter, SB Order No. 12/2007 dated 05.09.2007 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Posts  may be referred to  wherein it is stated that proper training is to be given to the staff working on counters and take disciplinary actions against the officials responsible for lapses and also directed to issue instruction to the full units for scrupulously following rules and procedure so that investor may not face in-convenience and Govt. may not face financial loss.

11.         It is seen that 4 number of single MIS accounts, which were closed on 20.01.14 for exceeding the maximum limit, were opened on the same day on 03.03.11 by using the same CIN. It can not be said  the complainant did this with any ulterior motive. If she had any such intention certainly she could have avoided to open all the said single MIS accounts on a single day using the same CIN. This is the responsibility of the Postal staff who are entrusted with the task of opening such accounts to examine whether the deposit in all accounts taken together exceeded the maximum limit. But they failed to discharge their burden  as per rules. It is the duty of the Postal staff to inform the complainant as to the maximum limit imposed under rules at the time of opening accounts but nothing of this sort was done. In our opinion, the staff, who were responsible for opening the MIS accounts, were to be blamed for such lapses not the depositor . But for this reason alone, the wrong doing can not be allowed to be persisted for ever. We think, the O.P. R.K. Pur Head Post Office rightly closed the irregular accounts of the complainant as such accounts were opened in violation of the statutory rules. It is seen that at the time closing the 4 number of MIS accounts the Postal Authority did not follow the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India. As per SB order No. 17/2009 dated 08.12.2009 issued by the Ministry of Communication and IT Department of Posts, before closing the irregular accounts a written notice should be sent to the depositor indicating the irregular opening with a request to close the account within 30 days of issue of notice. But in the present case no such notice appears to have been issued by the Postal Authority.

12.         We have already pointed out that the financial loss, if any, suffered by the Govt. was due to the ignorance and lapses of the Postal staff who were responsible for opening those accounts. As it appears, the complainant continued to receive interests of the irregular MIS accounts opened by her till 07.12.13. All these happened due to non-observation of rules by the postal staff itself. Therefore, unhesitantly the charge of negligence and deficiency in service are attributable to the postal staff. In this connection, it is advantageous here to refer to the decision of the  Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rendered in Revision Petition No- 1020 of 2002 dated  15th November, 2002 in the case of K.M. Singh Vrs. Senior Post Master, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in the above cited case is very much applicable in the present case.

13.        In the result therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed on contest. The O.Ps No.1 and 2 are directed to pay interest at the contractual rate to the complainant on the accounts which exceeded the limit and to be refunded from the date of deposit till 20.01.14 when the competent authority closed the irregular accounts.  In addition the said O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment with Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as costs of litigation within 3(three) weeks of the receipt of the copy of judgment, failing which the amount payable will carry interest @ 12% P.A. till the payment is made in full. 
 
14.                   A N N O U N C E D

SRI S. C. SAHA
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 
SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.    SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.