JUDGEMENT

          Complainant P. Dutta by filing this complaint has submitted that he took house building loan from the Central Bank of India, Ghughudanga Branch and submitted 3 nos. of NSC bearing No. (i) 6NS/34EE844511 denomination of Rs. 10,000/-, (ii) 6NS/29DD414229 denomination of Rs. 5,000/- & (iii) 6NS/49CC036416 denomination of Rs. 1,000/- respectively having dates of purchased 19.03.2001, 23.03.2002 & 23.03.2002 respectively and it was purchased in the name of Pradip Dutta, Sukla Dutta and the said 3 nos. of NSC were sent by the Central Bank of India to the Sub-Post Master RRR, Sarani Post Office (Op no.5) for pledging in favour of Central Bank of India, Ghughudanga Branch vide Registration No. 30274 dated 07.11.2006 which is evident from the memo of the bank dated 06.11.2006.  But the said NSC were not returned to the bank by the Post office till 27.10.2007. 

          But in the meantime stipulated period of 6 years had already been expired and complainant represented for the benefits of the NSC but no result.  Subsequently Central Bank of India, Ghughudanga Branch issued a letter dated 27.10.2007 to the Sub Post Master (SPM) RRR Sarani Post Office Kolkata-09 for recording the maturity value of the NSC on the expiry of the stipulated period of 6 years and return the same after making pledge in their favour.  Subsequently complainant submitted a letter dated 06.07.2009 to the Sr. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India requesting to arrange to pay his dues for the NSCs and to reinvest the same.  But the SPM (HSG-1) RRR Sarani post office, Kolkata-09 issued a letter vide No. E-52/NSC Pledge 05/09-10 at RRR Sarani P.O. and on 24.07.2010 to the Sr. Supdt. of Post East Kolkata Division, Kolkata-14 acknowledged the receipt of the 3 NSCs and alleging that those have been delivered to Pradip Dutta  under his clear acquaintance.

          That the Central Bank of India, Branch issued a letter to the Chief P.M.G. West Bengal Circle detailing about the transmission and misplacement of the 3 NSCs.  Under such circumstances complainant lodged complaint on 12.07.2011 before the Directorate of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Govt. of W.B. for full maturity valued of the 3 NSCs and interest and the said office arranged tripartite mediation meetings where it was settled through discussion that the post office would issue duplicate NSCs.  But under the above backdrop of such a history of prolonged harassment and inexplicable mental agony, complainant submitted this complaint for deficiency of service and for resolving the entire amount with interest for deficiency of service on the part of the bank and also the Post Office.

          On the other hand on behalf of the op no.1 the bank authority submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and all allegations are denied but it is stated that on 27.05.2009 bank was informed by the RR Sarani Post Office that they have not received the NSCs and thereafter bank vide their letter dated 21.08.2009 asked the Chief Post Master General West Bengal intimated regarding the transmission and misplacement of the 3 NSCs, though the Sudpt. Of Post Office, North Calcutta Division vide a letter being No. SBI dated 17.05.2010 confirmed that the Central Bank of India, Ghughudanga Branch booked a registered letter being No. A957 dated 09.11.2006 addressed to the Dy. Post Master, RR Sarani, Kolkata-08 and the same is sent through Kolkata RMS TD under Sl. No. 18/18 on the same day and after that on advice of the post office the then Branch Manager posted a letter to the SPM, RRR Sarani, on 27.10.2007 requesting him to reinvest the amount for further period of 6 years and returned the same to the bearer of the said letter Mr. Pradip Dutta and it is further stated that on the basis of the said letter dated 27.10.2007 said Pradip Dutta received a letter by putting his signature on the letter dated 06.11.2006 which was sent by the bank to post office for taking delivery of the 3 NSCs and deposit the same NSCs at Bank.  In this regard it is also stated that Pradip Dutta never disclosed the letter before the bank that he did not receive the same from post office.

          It is further submitted that subsequently by a letter dated 13.07.2012 by the Govt. office though bank has duly issued letter to the concerned post office to issue duplicate NSCs no response have received from their end.  But subsequently on 17.09.2013 bank has received the duplicate NSCs from the Department of Posts, India, Office of the SPM, RRR Sarani, P.O. (HSG-1), Kolkata-09 vide their memo No. E-52/NSC/Duplicate/09/2013-14 dated 13.09.2013 and on receipt of the same bank on or about 20.09.2013 has sent his men to the borrower’s available address to the bank from their loan application form as noted in the loan account i.e. 2, Purba Sinthee Bye Lane, Kolkata-700030 but in the present address there was none.  Thereafter op/bank on several occasion sent his men to the said address and found none and local inhabitants are also not aware about borrower’s whereabouts and due to that reason the NSCs were kept with bank till date and after search of the loan record the same was placed before the present Branch Manager and now from the cause title of this complaint it was found that the borrower’s are presently residing at 53C, Akhil Mistry Lane, P.S.- Muchipara, Kol-09 and borrower never intimated their present address to the bank and the op nos. 1 & 2 have no fault and practically they have their no liability and for that reason they have prayed for dismissal of this case.

          But in this case Postal Authority op nos. 3 to 5 by filing written statement submitted that on 27.10.2007 the said NSCs were handed over to the complainant under clear acquaintance of the complainant/Depositor as per the authority letter of the bank.  so the question of supplying the certificate to the bank authority does not arise at all.  Further it is submitted that bank vide letter No. Ghughu/CRC/2011-12/11 dated 02.11.2011 informed about loss of the 3 NSCs from their custody and after that as discussed in the tripartite meeting held with Director of CA & FBP, op necessary action for issuing duplicate certificate was taken and finally duplicate certificates were issued in favour of Central Bank of India, Ghughudanga Branch on 01.04.2013 and op no.5 sent a letter to bank authority on 27.04.2013 to deposit the releasing fees of Rs.15/- in shape of banker cheque, since no reply was received from the bank the certificates were sent to bank under R.L. No. RW. 413286206IN dated 13.09.2013 which was duly received by the bank on 14.09.2013 and in fact there was no negligence or deficiency on the part of the op and this complainant was wrongly criticized for their alleged performance but they have their no laches on the ops and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                                         Decision with reasons

          In the present case after studying the entire complaint including the written version, it is clear that complainant deposited the said 3 NSCs to the bank for pledging and it is also admitted fact that bank sent the same for pledge by registered post with A/D through Postal Authority and bank has admitted that they sent the same by registered post with A/D being No. A957 dated 09.11.2006 address to the Dy. Post Master General, RRR Sarani, Kolkata- 700009 under Sl. No. 18/18 on the same date and after that on advice of the Post office the then Branch Manager posted a letter to the SPM, RRR Sarani, on 27.10.2007 requesting him to reinvest the amount for further period of 6 years and returned the same to the bearer of the said letter Mr. Pradip Dutta.  Then it is clear that bank sent the said 3 NSCs by registered post with A/D through Kolkata RMS TD under Sl. No. 18/18 on 09.11.2006 for pledging that means the article was deposited to one RRR Sarani Post Office for handing over the same to the Dy. Post Master General of RRR Sarani, Kolkata -09 for pledging, that means post office received the said 3 NSCs from the bank authority and it was sent by registered post with A/D and pay such service charges as per postal rules and RMS received it.  But it was not transmitted to Dy. Post Master General of RRR Sarani.  Then it is clear that from the postal authority custody it was lost. Then it is also equally clear that laches was on the part of the op postal authority who received the article from the bank but the postal authority has failed to handover the same to their Dy. Post Master General of RRR Sarani, Kolkata-09.  But peculiarity is that the postal authority has tried to say that it was lost from the bank custody.  But truth is that it was lost from RMS that is the postal authority.  The very bank employee proved that one post office has failed to handover the article sent by bank authority to their Dy. Post Master General through RMS.  But op present postal authority has tried to shift their burden upon the bank stating that it was lost from the bank authority but it is not true.  It was lost from the custody of the postal authority (RMS) because it was sent by registered post with A/D.

          Further fact is that op is trying to prove and bank tried to prove that Pradip Dutta received the same by putting his signature on the letter dated  06.11.2006 which was sent by the bank to post office for taking delivery of the 3 NSCs and deposit the same NSCs at Bank.  But truth is that bank only sent letter through that complainant for accepting the same and complainant in that letter only noted “received the letter for taking delivery of the 3 NSCs but deposit the same NSCs at Bank” and it was noted by Pradip Dutta on 27.10.2007 and that letter simply proves that banking authority authorized Pradip Dutta to receive back the said 3 NSCs from the post office and to deposit the same to the bank.  But Postal authority has failed to prove by producing any document that 3 NSCs for delivery was handed over to Pradip Dutta on 27.10.2007.  But even then postal authority has taken a plea that Pradip Dutta received the original 3 NSCs that is completely false and fabricated and defense as taken by the op postal authority is no doubt a dishonest defence which is evident from the letter of the postal authority dated 17.05.2010 wherefrom it is found that the postal authority admitted that banking authority booked a registered letter being No. A957 dated 09.11.2006 addressed to the Dy. Post Master, RR Sarani, Kolkata-08 and the same is sent through Kolkata RMS TD under Sl. No. 18/18 on the same day and after that on advice of the post office and postal authority also by that letter they tried to say that same were not received for misplace.  But truth is that 3 NSCs were sent through RMS under Sl. No. 18/18 that means one postal authority received it for sending the same to the Dy. Post Master General of RRR Sarani, Kolkata – 09 and it was sent by GPO through RMS under Sl. No. 18/18 and thereafter original NSCs were not found and postal authority kept silent, bank was sitting idle.  Thereafter complainant on maturity went to bank to realize of the same when the whole matter was discovered that 3 NSCs were lost.  When bank has tried to say that it was sent to post office but post office has lost it.  Post office made allegation that bank never sent it and sometime post office has taken a plea that complainant has received it as per advice letter of the op/bank. But ultimately it is proved finally after considering the materials that postal authority received that 3 NSCs from the bank and it was sent through RMS and that was sent to Dy. Post Master of RRR Sarani, Kolkata-09 for pledging but RMS is silent through the said 3 NSCs were lost from the custody of the postal department and this is the picture of the active performance of daily service about the registered letter sent by bank through post office to another post office and it is proved that 3 NSCs were lost from the custody of the postal authority and when it is admitted that General Post office sent the said 3 NSCs but Superintendent of Post office of RRR Sarani for pledging but RMS postal authority is silent and peculiarities is that Ld. Lawyer of the postal authority tried to convince that complainant received it.

          But we are unable to understand for what reason such a dishonest false plea was taken by the Post Master General that it was received by the complainant as per advice letter of the op/bank.  In so many cases postal authority are taking false plea and it is their only business in all the cases.  In previous occasion it was also detected that postal authority was at fault.  We have already expressed our anxiety about the total functioning of the postal authority in West Bengal.  In the present case it is further proved that the notorious activities have been done by the postal authority and they have tried to make the complainant as accused claiming that he received the original 3 NSCs and that was lost from his custody.  Vital truth is that it was lost from the RMS of the op/ Postal Authority for which ultimately when the matter was placed before CA & FBP, duplicate copy was issued to the bank and what more material is required to prove that postal authority has adopted unfair trade practice.  They lost vital 3 NSCs which were sent by the bank and received by the postal authority for sending to Dy. Post Master General of RRR Sarani, Kolkata-09.  But it was lost from RMS and issuance duplicate copies of 3 NSCs is not sufficient because those 3 NSCs maturity date expired in the year 2007 and in the meantime another 7 years already lapsed, then invariably for long 7 years period making complaint before postal authority and bank they were playing LUKOCHURI and that play is nothing but a very common play of children which is a very common play during childhood and they were making the complainant an accused and tried to prove the fault of the complainant.  But total failure is on the part of the op for the laches, deficiency and negligent on the part of the op postal authority and at the same the bank was under deep sleep since deposit of 3 NSCs by the complainant for pledging against the loan account and considering that fact it is clear that when the said 3 NSCs were matured and complainant reported the matter for re-investment when bank sent a letter for reinvestment and thereafter it was continued for another 3 years and ultimately as per tripartite mediation as taken by the Department of CA & FBP ultimately on 13.09.2013 practically 3 duplicate copies of the NSCs were issued to the bank.  So, considering that fact it is clear that for the laches of the bank and at the same time the postal authority, the complainant cannot be deceived from getting the actual fund in respect of said 3 NSCs on maturity including interest after that and till today and it is a glaring instance of the malpractices, deficiency, deceiving the customer and adopting of unfair trade practice of the postal authority in almost all the cases when complaint is being lodged.  People are being harassed by the postal authority including banking institution in respect of such instance because they practically behave with customer like street dogs because complainant is lonee member and in the post offices practically agents are the friend of the staff but not the actual NSCs holders.

          So, considering the above fact we are convinced to hold that the defence of the postal authority that complainant received the original 3 NSCs is proved a false story.  Falsely that defence is taken by the postal authority to same their skin and to cover their all misdeeds, their negligence, loss of original 3 NSCs by the RMS etc.  Practically postal authority should be penalized for that and penalty should be imposed against such postal authority for adopting unfair trade practice for taking false defence and vexatious defence in this case.  It is convincing truth that 3 NSCs are now in the custody of the postal authority since 19.03.2001, 23.03.2002 and 23.03.2002 and in respect of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively and in fact for the loss of the said articles from the RMS of the postal department, postal department was sitting tight lipped till the matter was ventilated by the complainant through bank and when the matter was agitated by the bank, then they took such defence that complainant received it.  When postal authority failed to prove that they became again silent and when complainant filed a complaint before CA & FBP, thereafter the duplicate copy was issued.  Then it is clear that the complainant must have to get 8% interest p.a. with the matured amount of the 3 NSCs when those are not yet being encashed by the complainant or by the bank and no doubt complainant prayed for reinvestment of the same through bank when it was received by the post office when post office tried to say that they never received it and if it would be investigated at that time and if proper enquiry had been made by the postal authority and bank in that case it can easily be reinvested for another 5 years from 2007 and in that case total maturity amount on 20.01.2007 would be double of the same.

          As per copy of the original 3 NSCs, it is clear that the NSCs denominations of Rs.10,000/- would be Rs. 20,150/- after lapse from 19.03.2007 and another  NSC for Rs. 5,000/- would be Rs. 10,075/- on 23.03.2008 and another NSC for denomination of Rs. 1,000/- would be Rs. 1,695/- on 23.03.2008.  So, it is clear that on maturity complainant would have to get Rs. 32,000/- and if it would reinvested in that year the figure would be more than Rs. 64,000/- and when that amount is in the custody of the postal authority, it is being invested by them and presently it is within their custody.  So, invariably complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 32,000/- as maturity amount including 8% interest p.a. of the same w.e.f. 3 NSCs date of maturity till its full payment to the complainant by the op postal authority and practically for dishonest and adopting unfair trade practice by the op post office and very worthless attitude of the banking authority complainant has suffered much.  For loss of 7 years practically complainants are entitled to get back the same but bank and post office refused to give him any relief and duplicate copy was received by the bank when the matter was sent to the CA & FBP, it indicates that both bank and postal authority did not discharge their moral and social liabilities to the customers or the complainant.  No doubt for such activities they should be not only penalized but the concerned staff who did not act accordingly should be penalized for their irresponsible activities.  But we are very much anxious about the fate when ops shall have to handover his actual benefit of the said 3 NSCs including interest.  No doubt bank and the post office are here but they shall not give relief, when the fault of the bank or the post office is detected by any Forum. 

          In this case we are not sure when the complainant shall have to get the result because they are government organization or undertaking organization they have their fund for litigation and ops only desire to harass the consumers in all respect as they have their fund.  Whatever it may be, situation is very critical and we are sure in future the public at large shall be harassed by the Government offices in all respect and it is a glaring instance of losing their social and moral responsibility and as Central Government Department (Postal Department) have taken fraudulent approach and tried to make this complainant accused.  But anyhow after consulting all documents it is found that unfair trade practice has been adopted by the Postal Authority who has lost the document when the article was rightly placed to the Postal Department and it was the duty of the Postal Department to hand over the same to another post office that was not followed.  Fact remains since 2007 complainant has been constantly harassed by the bank and by the post office and fault was on their part and post office can easily release the fund after discharging it from pledging because pledging was not done but the dispute can easily be settled releasing the said second copy by giving 8% interest over the matured amount from the date of its maturity to the complainant and matter can be disposed of.  But dishonest postal department and their authority are not in a mood to confess their fault and misdeeds.  But they are here and there for spending litigation fund of the postal department and for which practically that government department has been losing huge fund for litigation and thereafter when their oxygen is found zero, they appeared before Court or Forum with folded hand not to pay the interest but they have their capacity to pay legally admissible amount but they are not doing justice and this is the picture of our administration in all respect either in the bank or in the hospital or in the post office or in the rail or in the BSNL everywhere similar picture is found.

          Considering all the above fact and materials including the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and relying upon the above discussion and findings we are confirmed when the allegations against both the parties are proved beyond any manner the negligence and deficiency and adopting of unfair trade practice by both the parties to avoid actual payment for such loss.

 In the circumstances this complaint succeeds.

Hence, it is

                                                    ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against both the ops with cost of Rs. 10,000/- each and both the ops shall have to pay the said litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- separately to the complainant.

Op postal authority shall have to release the maturity amount of the 3 NSCs and also interest @ 8 % p.a. over the same from the date of maturity of the respective 3 NSCs and till full payment of the same to the complainant and it must be paid by the op/postal authority within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and disobeyance of the Forum’s order, op postal authority jointly and severally shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs. 300/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.

For adopting unfair trade practice by the postal authority and also by the bank and also for taking false plea by the op postal authority and bank both the institution shall have to pay Rs. 50,000/- as penal compensation and it is imposed for controlling and checking such sort of malpractice as adopted by the bank and postal authority and said amount shall be deposited to this Forum.

For harassing the complainant for last 7 years by the bank and postal authority, both the authority shall have to pay Rs. 40,000/- each as compensation for causing mental harassment and financial loss for loitering from one place to another and for spending huge money for litigation to get relief by the present complainant and same shall be paid by the respective authorities i.e. bank and postal authority separately within one month from the date of this order to the complainant and for non-compliance of the total order by the ops, ops shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 and for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.