Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member
In a nut shell, the case of the petitioners is that they opened one Recurring Deposit Account vide Account No.222727, which was later re-numbered as 7840107780 with OP No.1. The amount of monthly deposit was Rs.500/- and they deposited @Rs.500/- on 20.12.14, 26.01.15,20.02.15 and 29.06.16 and on the same date i.e. on 29.06.106, they further deposited Rs.500/-. Thus, the petitioners had deposited Rs.2,500/- in total. Subsequently, due to financial constraint, they could not continue with Recurring Deposit Account and on 10.04.19, they approached OP No.1 for withdrawal of the amount lying in the said Recurring Deposit Account. But, they could not withdraw the amount and also came to know that the amount deposited by them were not noted in the relevant Ledger Book.
Subsequently, the petitioners approached OP No.2 and filed a written complaint on 30.04.19 but as nothing was done by them in this regard, the petitioners filed the instant complaint before this Forum seeking several reliefs in the form of an order for the refund of Rs.2,500/- alongwith interest, compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
One w/v was filed on behalf of the Ops contending that Rs.2,500/- was lying in the Recurring Deposit Account of the petitioners.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1 and 2.
The Ops raised no objection on these points. However, the Complainant is, no doubt, a consumer within the term as defined under CP Act, 1986.
The petitioners are the residents of Cooch Behar district and the Offices of the OPs are located within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary limit of this Forum. Thus, these points are disposed of in favour of the Complainant.
Point No.3 and 4.
The grievance of the petitioners is that despite having deposited several instalments towards their Recurring Deposit Account opened with OP No.1, they were refused for payment on maturity. It is true that the petitioners could not continue their Recurring Deposit Account by depositing Rs.500/- per month in subsequent months after depositing for a couple of months. However, at the end of the stipulated period, there must be some amount lying in the said Recurring Deposit Account, which the petitioners are entitled to withdraw.
According to the petitioners, they had deposited Rs.2,500/- in total. From the w/v, which is, in fact, containing a single paragraph, it is found that the Ops admitted that Rs.2,500/- was lying in the said Recurring Deposit Account.
It is the contentions of the petitioners that they had deposited Rs.500/- on several dates, which was received by the OP No.1 by making “Note” in the Recurring Deposit Account Pass Book with official seal.
Subsequently, however, what happened, on being refused, the petitioners approached OP No.2, who is the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cooch Behar Division and filed an application against OP No.1. The payment was refused to the petitioners by OP No.1 on 10.04.19 and on 30.04.19, they filed the complaint with OP No.2 and on 31.07.19, the petitioners were asked by the OP No.2 to be present at New Cooch Behar Post Office for settlement of the case. But, in the meantime, on 27.05.19, this case was filed by the petitioners.
Now, from the aforesaid fact, it is clear that in order to withdraw the amount lying in the Recurring Deposit Account of the petitioners, they had to approach the higher authority i.e. OP No.2 due to the lackadaisical attitude and conduct of OP No.1. It is the fault of OP No.1 for which the petitioners could not withdraw the amount even after the date of maturity.
The conduct on the part of the OP No.1 is, no doubt, amounts to deficiency in service, resulting in the sufferings of the petitioners. No reason was shown by the Ops in the w/v as to why the petitioners were refused payment. Therefore, the petitioners are justified to approach this Forum for getting desired reliefs.
The petitioners are entitled to refund of Rs.2,500/- alongwith interest. The petitioners are also entitled to compensation for harassment. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners.
Hence,
It is ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- alongwith interest @8% per annum to the petitioners in connection with their Recurring Deposit Account. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners for compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.2,000/- for cost of litigation.
The Ops are to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the entire awarded sum for a period until realization. The petitioners shall also be at liberty to execute the said order in accordance with law.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, if any. The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
