By Smt. Beena. M,Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief: The Complainant has joined the 'Sukanya Samridhi Yojana Scheme’ Offered by Indian Post Office through the Opposite Party No.1 for grand-daughter, minor-Samanta Nevin Jones. The Opposite Party had issued a passbook of the Kalpetta Post office after joining the account and was regularly depositing money into the above said 'Sukanya Samridi Yojana Scheme’ from 09/09/2016 onwards. It is further submitted that at the time of taking the account in the scheme 'Sukanya Samridi Yojana’ of Opposite Parties, the Complainant had conveyed the Opposite Party officials about every detail of the parents of the child as well as his intention to join the scheme for his grand-daughter, his son’s daughter. And also informed the Opposite Party’s official that the child’s Parent are working in UAE, hence the Opposite Party No.1 shown as the Complainant as the guardian of the child, Samanta Nevin Jones, and accepted the payment to the said account in the Kalpetta post office. The officials of the Opposite Party never informed the Complainant that the guardian in relation to minor means father and mother only. Hence the Complainant on good faith started depositing money in the above-mentioned scheme at the post office frequently. While so, on 14/08/2023 the Complainant went to the Opposite Party No.1 Office for the payment of the money in accordance with the above-mentioned scheme, and had filled out the pay-in-slip for the payment and submitted it along with money. But the Complainant was made waiting for little time, then one of the Opposite Party’s staff came and enquired about the account details and on to which scheme the Complainant was paying money. The Staff of the Opposite Parties enquired about the scheme and minor child and told the Complainant that they cannot accept money to the account under the said scheme since the parents are working abroad. Then the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 stating this information passed on by their staff. But the Opposite Party No.1 had told that he would communicate the details after getting the information from the centre. Later on 20/09/2023, when the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 had again met the Opposite Party No.1 personally and requested for refund of the amount with interest but the Opposite Party No. 1 had informed the Complainant that he couldn’t do anything since he didn’t receive any information from higher officials. It is further submitted that while opening the above said account the Opposite Party’s staffs had never said a word relating to the issue of the person who can be Guardian, even though they very well know that the account was opened for the Complainant’s grand-daughter and even in Passbook issued on 16/12/2016, the guardian’s name is shown as Victor Daniel Johns, who is the Complainant. At the time of opening of the account there was no dispute with regards to who would be the guardian nor the staffs have informed that the guardian of the minor can be either father or mother of the child. The Complainant approached the post master on 27/09/2023 and when the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1 submitted a grievance letter with a request for refund of the amount with interest but the Opposite Party No.1 or to convert the amount in deposited to any other, scheme but the post master had declined the requested stating that without the prior permission of the higher officials no actions could not be taken. Subsequently the Complainant had received a letter dated 12-10-2023 from the Opposite Party No.2 stating that since the Complainant never comes under the preview of Guardian as per their department Guidelines, there is an error happened in accepting the money for the above-mentioned scheme and the deposits are not being accepted in the account after detecting the error. The Opposite Party failed to return the amount deposited by the Complainant with interest and failed to take any decision on the issue. The acts of the Opposite Parties are nothing but clear deficiency of service. The error, according to the version of Opposite Parties, had committed by the staff of the Opposite Party and due to such act any damages caused, the Opposite Parties are liable for the same. The staff of the Opposite Parties, who worked on behalf of the Opposite Party, failed to inform the rules of the department and failed to inform the Complainant at point of time, even though he was paying the money from 2016 till 2023. The Complainant submitted that the credit balance in the account is Rs. 2,52,284/- as per the account statement. The Opposite Parties are responsible for the inconvenience and discomforts caused to Complainant and the Opposite Parties liable and responsible to refund the amount as per the account statement with interest and also liable to pay the compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties represented and the case was posted for version on 02.03.2024. There was no representation of Opposite Parties on that date and so they were set ex-parte. As the Opposite Party was absent, the case was posted for evidence of the Complainant on 01.04.2024. The evidence was taken and the documents were marked as Ext. A1 to A3.
4. Ext.A1 is the Pass book issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, Ext.A2 is the request letter dated 27/09/2023 send by the Complainant and Ext.A3 is the reply letter from Opposite Party No.2 dated 12/10/2023. We have perused the complaint and documents produced by the Complainant. It is seen that the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,52,284/- to join Suganya Samridhi Yojana Scheme. In this case, the Opposite Party remained absent and set ex-parte. The allegations made in the complaint against the Opposite Parties and the documentary evidence under Ext.A1 to A3 unchallenged. If the Opposite Party had given the correct information, the Complainant would not have deposit the above amount. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to explain everything about the Scheme. The Opposite Party has no right to retain the money of the Complainant, if he has no right to deposit the amount under Suganya Samridhi Yojana Scheme. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties towards the Complainant in not refund the amount. So the Opposite Party is liable to pay the same.
In the result, the Complaint is partly allowed, and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,52,284/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Four Only) paid by the Complainant with 8% interest from the date of receiving and to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation along with cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only).
The above order shall comply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which all the above amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of default till its realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of June 2024.
Date of Filing:-18.12.2023.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Victor Daniel Jones. Private.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Copy of Duplicate Pass Book.
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:27.09.2023.
A3. Copy of Reply Letter. Dt:12.10.2023.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
