Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/152/2020

Dhirendre Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Post Master Head Office - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N.R.Mohapatra

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                                  JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs:

            “Direct the opposite party to disburse the fixed bond amount of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and mental agony”.

            The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that, the complainant opened a fixed deposit account vide A/c No.50/98 and the S.B. Account No.0126565 and the same is submitted to 225454 of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant wants to withdraw the said fixed amount and the said bond was lost somewhere. So the complainant lodged a written report before the I.I.C., Tirtol P.S. The complainant is now in need of money. So the complainant several times approached the opposite party to disburse the said fixed amount to the complainant. On 09.9.2020 the complainant issued an advocate notice to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any action.

            The complainant has filed the case without specifically mentioning the correct account number, name of the scheme in which the amount was deposited. The complainant has stated that he has lodged FIR/written report before Tirtol P.S. on 19.02.2020. The complainant has filed two cases bearing C.C. No.140/2020 & C.C. No.152/2020. In C.C. No.140/2020 there is an affidavit to the effect that Sanatan Pradhan and Dhirendra Pradhan, S/o. Kapila Pradhan and Baishnab Pradhan is one and same person. The opposite party authorities have also denied the allegations stating as under;

            The complainant presented incorrect account numbers namely 2025656, 225454 and 50/98. Even there is a mismatch in the saving bank account number as provided by the complainant in the advocate notice issued to the opposite party on 09.9.2020 and in the plaint copy provided by the complainant was 2025656, but here in complaint petition account number provided is 0126565. However, each time on verification of computerized records, it is found that no such  account numbers exist in the office of opposite party. All such account numbers are showing invalid. All the endeavors has been taken by the opposite party to find out the account numbers even by query by the name of Dhirendra Kumar Pradhan but did not get any success. The search shown as “query does allow any record”. The complainant also could not be able to produce the name of exact scheme of investment, copy of passbook, date of opening of account or date of last transaction of any such accounts.

            From the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that the complainant is not in a good state of mind and he has filed frivolous petitions in different names by swearing one affidavit that he is one and same person. We had also directed to the counsels of opposite parties in both cases to verify the documents but there is no document available in favour of the complainant regarding the deposit in any SB account in Post Office. The complainant has not come in clean hands and his cases have been filed without giving any details of the particular scheme, serial number, account number in which the complainant has deposited the amount.

            We therefore held that complainant has failed to make out a case and accordingly both the cases are dismissed. Taking into consideration of the mental status of complainant who was present in this Commission we impose no cost.