Date of Filing : 15.04.2014
Date of Order : 12.04.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.207/2014
TUESDAY THIS 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mrs. R. Brinda,
W/o. S.Ranganathan,
Old No.21, New No.9,
Samiyar Garden Road,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai 600 083. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Post Master General
Chennai City Region,
Chennai 600 002.
2. The Post Master,
West Mambalam Post office,
Chennai 600 002. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. R. Muruganandam
For the opposite parties : M/s. S.Ravindran
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.30,000/- to be re-credit in her account with interest from 04.07.2012 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as mental agony and cost of the complaint.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he was holding public provident fund account for the period of 15 years, bearing account no. 5010034 with the 2nd opposite party post office, from the year 2001 onwards and often making deposits. According to the complaint, complainant has deposited for a sum of Rs.30,000/- during the year 2005 in the said account and the same was entered in the said passbook and interest for the said amount deposited in the account were calculated every year and necessary endorsement for the total amount of deposit with interest were also entered in the pass book. Whereas on 04.07.2012, the opposite parties have cancelled the said entry made in the pass book for the said amount of Rs.30,000/- with endorsement that “Cancelled vide head office instructions correction made on 04.07.2012”. Accordingly the complainant also written letter dated 18.07.2012 to the 2nd opposite party post office and the opposite party has replied the same. The complainant also sent legal notice on 1.4.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to credit a sum of Rs.30,000/- together with interest. The act of the opposite parties is amount to deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this complaint stating that the above said deduction made by the opposite party for Rs.30,000/- in the account of the complainant, is not proper and which amounts to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for the said amount to be re-credited in her account with interest from 04.07.2012 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as mental agony and cost of the complaint. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite parties is briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties deny all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties submit that the said entry in the pass book for Rs.30,000/- is not bears the date and date seal. Further the complainant has not filed any proof for the said deposit made by her such as counter foil of remittance, during the inspection and in the course auditing conducted in the office of the 2nd opposite party it was found a sum of Rs.30,000/- deposit was made by one Tiruvenkatachari holding PPF account bearing account No.5010134 on 13.10.2005. Whereas no such amount of Rs.30,000/- was found to be deposited by the complainant in her above said account as per the ledger and the day book maintained in the course of business of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore the entry found in the complainant’s pass book for Rs.30,000/- during the year 2005, which was without date and seal was decided as mistake entry. As per the said account the complainant has to make deposited only for Rs.70,000/- and not more than that. As per the said pass book the complainant has already made deposit of Rs.70,000/- on 03.06.2005, for the said year 2005. Therefore the complainant would not have deposited the said amount of Rs.30,000/- that too without mentioning the date of deposit. From the records maintained for the relevant period by the 2nd opposite party such as ledger, day books in respect of PPF deposits, the opposite parties have came to conclusion that the alleged entry found in the passbook of the complainant for Rs.30,000/- was a mistake entry and no such amount was deposited by the complainant in the said account, as no proof for the same also produced by the complainant, the opposite parties officers concerned have instructed the 2nd opposite party to cancel the entry of Rs.30,000/- in the said pass book as such necessary endorsement was made on the pass book dated 04.07.2012, which is proper, and deduction for the said total amount were made is also proper and the complainant is not entitled for relief sought for in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties are filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by the complainant, the proof affidavit filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post office, Chennai City South Division, on behalf of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 filed on the side of opposite parties and also considered both sides arguments.
6. Considering the both side case, the complainant was holding public provident fund account for the period of 15 years, bearing account no. 5010034 with the 2nd opposite party post office, from the year 2001 onwards and often making deposits. The copy of the pass book and the entries thereon for the said account is filed as Ex.A1. According to the complaint, complainant has deposited Rs.30,000/- during the year 2005 in the said account and the same was entered in the said passbook and interest for the said amount deposited in the account were calculated every year and necessary endorsement for the total amount of deposit with interest were also entered in the pass book. Whereas on 04.07.2012, the opposite parties have cancelled the said entry made in the pass book for the said amount of Rs.30,000/- with endorsement that “Cancelled vide head office instructions correction made on 04.07.2012” .
7. The complainant has raised grievance over the said cancellation of the entry for Rs.30,000/- and deduction made by the 2nd opposite party as it was arbitrary and not lawful and complainant also written letter dated 18.07.2012 to the 2nd opposite party post office which is filed as Ex.A2 and the opposite party has replied the same by letter dated July 18 2012 which is filed as Ex.A3. The reply was given by the Post Master General Chennai which is filed as Ex.A4. The complainant also sent legal notice which is filed as Ex.A5 to the opposite parties. The complainant has filed this complaint stating that the above said deduction made by the opposite party for Rs.30,000/- in the account of the complainant, is not proper and which amounts to deficiency of service and claims the said amount to be recredited in her account with interest from 04.07.2012 to till the date of payment and payment of compensation against the opposite parties.
8. Whereas the opposite parties resisted the complaint by stating that the said entry in the pass book for Rs.30,000/- is not bears the date and date seal. Further the complainant has not filed any proof for the said deposit made by her, such as counter foil of remittance, during the inspection and in the course auditing conducted in the office of the 2nd opposite party it was found a sum of Rs.30,000- deposit was made by one Tiruvenkatachari holding PPF account bearing account No.5010134 on 13.10.2005. Whereas no such amount of Rs.30,000/- was found to be deposited by the complainant in her above said account as per the ledger and the day book maintained in the course of business of the 2nd opposite party. Therefore the entry found in the complainant’s pass book for Rs.30,000/- during the year 2005, which was without date and seal was decided as mistake entry. Further in respect of the claim of the complaint for the said account though she was asked to file proof for the deposit made for the said amount, she has not produced any such proof. Further the opposite parties have contended that as per the said account the complainant has to make deposit only for Rs.70,000/- and not more than that. As per the said pass book Ex.A1 the complainant has already made deposit of Rs.70,000/- on 03.06.2005, for the said year 2005. Therefore the complainant would not have deposited the said amount of Rs.30,000/- that too without mentioning the date of deposit. Considering the all the above said aspects and the records maintained for the relevant period by the 2nd opposite party such as ledger, day books in respect of PPF deposits , the opposite parties have came to conclusion that the alleged entry found in the passbook of the complainant for Rs.30,000/- was a mistake entry and no such amount was deposited by the complainant in the said account, as no proof for the same also produced by the complainant, the opposite parties officers concerned have instructed the 2nd opposite party to cancel the entry of Rs.30,000/- in the said pass book as such necessary endorsement was made on the pass book dated 04.07.2012, which is proper, and deduction for the said total amount were made is also proper. Therefore the opposite parties have contended that the complaint mentioned allegations are not sustainable and the complainant is not entitled for relief sought for in the complaint. In support of the above said contentions made by the opposite parties they have filed Ex.B1 to B12.
9. On perusal of the said documents, particularly the entries found in the complainant’s pass book Ex.A1 and another Tiruvenkatachari Pass Book Ex.B3, except the said disputed entry for Rs.30,000/- in the pass book of complainant the other entries for the deposits are mentioned with date and date seal of the office were affixed. But for the entry of the alleged deposit of Rs.30000/- instead of mentioning the date XXX mark was found and no usual date seal of the said post office was affixed in the said entry. It has not been properly explained on the side of complainant. Further it is pertinent to note that though the complainant has categorically stated that as she deposited a sum of Rs.30000/- during the year 2005, she has not mentioned the date on which she has made such deposit. The complainant mere stating that since the entry was made in the pass book she was not used to maintain to keep the counter foil of the remittance is not acceptable. Since for the particular entry of the deposit no date has been mentioned in the pass book, it is the duty of the complainant to take necessary steps in order to rectify the said defects, she ought to have expected to keep the remittance slip and using the same, she ought to have approached the opposite parties in time. For failure of the such action on the part of the complainant is not properly explained. Further on going through the documents Ex.B1 the pass book entries of one Tiruvenkatachari and the entries thereon, and the copy of the ledger of the said account Ex.B5 and the list of interest statement of the customers maintained by the 2nd opposite party 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 which is filed as Ex.B6, the copy of the interest adjustment register of the head office of the 2nd opposite party office Ex.B7 and the copy of the long book maintained by the 2nd opposite party office from 29.01.2005 to 01.09.2006 Ex.B10 are all proves that as contended by the opposite parties on 13.10.2005 in the Tiruvenkatachari’s PPF account bearing No.5010134 Rs.30,000/- was deposited and necessary particulars were found in the proper records maintained in the usual course of business in the 2nd opposite party office, and on the other hand, there is no proof that as mentioned in the alleged entry in the complainant’s pass book a sum of Rs.30,000/- was deposited. Therefore as contended by the opposite party that the alleged entry relied upon by the complainant in her pass book for Rs.30,000/- is not based on true fact and appears to be entry made by mistake, as such the opposite parties have instructed to cancel the same and deducted the said amount in the said account is proper and cannot be said deficiency of service.
10. Further as contended by the opposite parties, as per the Rule 4 of Post office Manual Vol.1 the pass book entries is for the information of public and there will be no legal liability of the department with regard to the balance or transactions shown in the pass book is also acceptable.
11. Therefore we are of the considered view that the alleged pass book entry relied upon by the complainant for Rs.30,000/- is of the mistake entry and the complainant has not proved that such amount was deposited by her, but on the contrary on the sound reasoning and on the basis of the particulars of records maintained by the 2nd opposite party’s the decision taken by the opposite parties for canceling the said entry and deducting the said amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant’s said account on 04.07.2012 and which was given effect to is proper and cannot be said deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore the complainant has miserably failed to prove the deficiency of service attributed against the opposite parties, as such complaint fails and liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 12th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 4.7.2012 - Copy of PPF Pass Book
Ex.A2- 18.7.2012 - Copy of Letter of complainant.
Ex.A3- 8.10.2012 - Copy of letter of complainant.
Ex.A4- 5.3.2014 - Copy of letter of Post Master General.
Ex.A5- 1.4.2014 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A6- 3.4.2014 - Copy of Acknowledgment Card.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Rule 152 of PPF Accounts.
Ex.B2- - - Copy of complainant PPF A/c No.5010034
Ex.B3- - - Copy of G.Thiruvengadachari PPF A/c.No.5010134.
Ex.B4- - - Copy of Ledger copy of PPF A/c.5010034 of the
complainant.
Ex.B5- - - Copy of ledger copy of PPF A/c.No.5010134 of
G.Thiruvengadachari.
Ex.B6- - - Copy of Interest statement of PPF accounts for the year
2004 to 2007.
Ex.B7- - - Copy of interest adjustment correction register of
T.Nagar, HO.
Ex.B8- 5.3.2014 - Copy of letter of Postmaster General, Chennai City Region,
Addressed to the complainant.
Ex.B9- 17.4.2014 - Copy of letter of Postmaster General, Chennai City Region,
Addressed to complainant’s counsel.
Ex.B10- - - Copy of long book of West Mambalam PO from 21.9.2005
to 1.9.2006.
Ex.B11- - - Copy of Rule 4 of Post office Savings bank Manual Volume-I
Ex.B12- 4.3.2013 - Copy of letter dated of SSPos Chennai City South Division,
Addressed to the complainant.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
