In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/121/2022.
Date of filing: 06/06/2022. Date of Final Order: 29/01/2024.
Amal Sadhukhan,
s/o Nemai Sadhukhan,
r/o Vill+P.O. Somrabazar, P.S. Balagarh,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712123. ……complainant
vs
- The Post Master,
Sripurbazar Sub-post office,
P.O. Sripurbazar, P.S. Balagarh,
Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712514.
- The Superintendant of Post-offices,
North Hooghly Division,
P.O. + P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712101.
- The Post- Master General,
South Bengal Region,
P.S. Bowbazar, Kol. 700012.…….opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that complainant deposited Rs.650000/- in the office of the respondent no.1 on 20.12.2016 under term deposit fixed scheme for 2 years and the rate of interest was 6.2% p.a. being A/c no.3735293890/- and the then the post master was Debasish Chakroboarty of Sripurbazar Post Office seating in the chair accepted the money and issued a passbook on 20.12.2016 which was hand written and the maturity date of the said T…D. was on 20.12.2018. Being matured of the said T.D on 20.12.2018, the complainant went to the respondent-1 office for withdrawing the said maturity amount from the said office but the said respondent -1 said that no money to be disbursed as because the said term deposit scheme was not recorded in their accounts and in their database. Being heard, the complainant was very much astonished and perplexed and the complainant three times requested to the said respondent -1 but he did not pay any heed to that matter. Finding no any other alternatives the complainant sent a letter to the respondent-3 Post Master General South Bengal Region, Kol-700012 for taking action against his claim. But erroneously, the date of issuing of that letter had not been mentioned in that letter. In response to the said letter, the respondent -3 sent a letter by registered post to the complainant dated 11.03.2020 acknowledged by the said respondent-3 of the letter of the complainant and forwarded to the respondent-2 Superintendent of Post Office North Hooghly Sub Division for taking necessary action to settle the case. The Assistant Director of Post Services i.e. the respondent -3 the Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Kol-700012 issued a letter dated 29.01.2021 to the S.P.O, North Hooghly Division, Chinsurah, 712101 i.e. to the respondent -2 and a copy of the said letter was forwarded to this complainant by a registered post for requesting the Superintendent of Post Office, North Hooghly Division for enquiry and report to the complainant. The respondent-3 sent a letter dated 12.04.2021 to the respondent -2 requesting to enquire into the matter for the reply of the complaint.
The Inspector of Post Office Chinsurah North Hooghly Sub Division i.e. the OP-2 issued a letter dated 5.7.2021 to the complainant by a registered post to attend the office of the respondent-2 on 13.7.2021 at 11.00 a.m but letter was received after the said date i.e. after 13.7.2021. Hence the complainant could not attend the said office of the OP-2. The said OP-2 giving another opportunity a letter was given on 13.7.2021 to the complainant for attending the OP-2’s office on 27.7.2021 at 11.00 a.m and requested the complainant to deposit the original passbook being no.3735293890 to be deposited in the office of the OP-2. The complainant went to the Superintendant of Post Office, North Hooghly Division i.e. the OP-2 but he said no such number was issued from our division and the original passbook of the post office of Sripurbazar kept with them and given acknowledgement of such passbook dated.9.8.2021 and it was retained for enquiry. The OP-1&2 have not corresponded to the complainant. Still, the complainant went to the office of the respondent-2 on 20.1.2022 for enquiry and verbally requested to disburse of his amount and asked for the original passbook to be returned to the complainant but the said office said that enquiry was going on and the original passbook not be returned to the complainant.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 650000/- plus accrued interest @6.2% till 20.12.2018 and accrued interest after the matured value till the actual payment in the same rate of interest i.e. @6.2% and to pay sum of Rs.100000/- for pain and suffering for the harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- for litigation cost.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No-2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the complainant had lodged a complaint to the Post Master General, South Bengal Region, regarding alleged non-payment of 2 years TD A/c no.3735293890 for Rs.650000/- at Sripur Bazar S.O. Inquiry was conducted and on inquiry it was found that as per the “Daily Account” of Sripurbazar S.O. dated 20.12.2016 no item as TD deposit was found on the said date as well as in the record of the Department of Posts.
The “Counterwise List of Transactions Report- TD” of Sripurbazar SO dated.20.12.2016 also showed that no TD account was opened on that day. A machine generated copy of “Transaction Inquiry” report in respect of A/c no.3735293890, one Error Messages reflected “The account does not exist”. It is evident that there is no document as per office record of Sripur Bazar Sub Post Office that Rs.650000/- has ever been deposited at the said office for opening of 2 years TD bearing A/c no.3735293890 in the name of the complainant, as claimed by him. As per Rule 27 of POSB Manual, Volume 1 at the time of opening of an account in any post office, the investor has to present A/C opening term and pay in slip along with the amount and always the receipt of pay-in-slip (SB-103) duly date stamped and signed is handed over to the depositor concerned in token of accepting the deposited account. The complainant has failed to produce any counter-foil of pay-in-slip that he had tendered the amount to the concerned post master on 20.12.2016 for deposit in 2 years TD scheme. The complainant has claimed that the pass book has been issued by the post master but on inquiry it was found that the said pass book is a fake, fabricated and forged document. The document resembling pass book with no.3735293890 has not been issued by Sripur Bazar post office. In “General Instruction” printed in the inside of the back page of a uniform common pass book it is noted at point 2 that, “ it is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in pass book from the concerned post office and post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. As per record there is no existence of the so called 2 years TD of A/c no.3735293890 alleged to have opened in the name of the complainant so question of payment of maturity amount in this regard does not arise.
As per direction of competent authority the inspector of posts, Chinsurah North Sub Division, Hooghly inquired into the matter and submitted detailed report and the post master Chinsurah, Hooghly was also requested to supply the requisites documents for inquiry purpose. The inquiry officer was directed by the competent authority to conduct confrontal inquiry between the complainant and the concerned sub post master of Sripur Bazar P.O. As per direction of the competent authority the complainant was requested to attend the office of the inspector of posts, Chinsurah North Sub-Division on 13.7.2021 with the original pass book with no. 3735293890. As the complainant did not attend on the specified date of inquiry he was again requested to attend before the concerned inquiry officer on 27.7.2021 with the so claimed original pass book.
During inquiry the inquiry officer collected one document resembling pass book with no. 3735293890 on 9.8.2021 on inquiry it revealed that
- The front page of the so called pass book where the depositor’s particulars were written, neither bears date stamps impression nor signature with seal of the sub post master of Sripur Bazar Sub Post offices.
- In the second page of the so called pass book the date stamp impression was tampered/ manipulated and the date format in the said date stamp did not resemble the one generally used in a post offices. The date has been over written by pen and tampered to look alike date 2.6.16 as evident in naked eye.
- Also in page 1 the date was written as 20.12.2016 while in page 2 date was 20.8.2016. Thus, three different dates are noted as “date of issue/ date of investment” in one document resembling pass book. The document bearing no. 3735293890 is itself a fake, fabricated and forged document.
During inquiry the complainant’s statement was also recorded in this regard and is full of anomalies and it is thus evident that the document which the complainant claimed to have been issued from Sripur Bazar post office is itself a fake, fabricates and forged document. Therefore the claim of the complainant regarding disbursing the said amount in favour of the complainant is baseless.
Rule 4 of POSB Manual Volume-1 reads-
A uniform common passbook (SB-) for all POSB schemes has been introduces. The entries in the said pass book will be made manually in non computerized offices and through pass book printer in computerized offices. The uniform common pass book needs to be stitched and not stapled so that it can be pass book printer friendly. The pass book 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. Thus, it may be logically concluded that there is no existence of the so called T.D. scheme for 2 years bearing no. 3735293890 in the record of Sripur Bazar SPO as well as in the record of the postal department. The complainant has also failed to produce any counter foil or pay in slip (SB-103) to substantiate his claim. Also the document, claimed by the complainant as so called original pass book is itself a fake, fabricated and forged. Hence the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer of the post offices as there is no relationship between the complainant and the department of posts as service provider. Thus, this case cannot fall under the purview of the C.P. Act, 2019. So, the case should be dismissed with costs.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points of consideration which have been very important and / or adopted in this case for arriving at just and proper decision are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly as the issues involved in the said points of considerations are interlinked and / or inter-connected with one another.
This District Commission for arriving at just and proper decision in this case after going through the material of this case record finds that the case of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.650000/- in the office of Respondent no.1 on 20.12.2016 for keeping the said amount under the term deposit fixed scheme for two years @ interest of Rs.6.2 % per annum and the said account no. is 3735293890. In this connection this District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the complainant has deposited the pass book in respect of the above noted fixed deposit account but it is very important to note that the complainant has not produced the counterfoil of the deposit slip showing the deposit of Rs.650000/- on 20.12.2016 in the office of Respondent no.1. So the case of the complainant that he deposited the above noted amount is totally doubtful. As per Rule 27 of POSB Mannual, Volume-1, at the time of opening an account in any post office, the investor has to present account opening form and pay in slip alongwith amount and always the receipt of pay in slip (SB-103) duly stamped and signed of the postal authority. This matter is clearly reflecting that the complainant has failed to prove that he deposited the amount of Rs.650000/- in respect of the above noted fixed deposit account.
On the background of the above noted position this District Commission after going through the material of this case record finds that the complainant side has filed one pass book in respect of the above noted account dated 9.8.2021 and the front page of the so called pass book where the depositor’s particulars are written is neither bearing any stamp impression of the said post office nor signature with seal of the Post Master of the said post office. This major defect which is reflecting on the said pass book has not been properly explained and / or answered by the complainant side. Moreover, on close examination of the said pass book it is revealed that in page no.1 the date has been written as 20.12.2016 while in page no.2 the date has been given as 20.8.2016. But fact remains that this major defect has not been explained and / or answered by the complainant side. It is also vital to note that the OPs have adopted the defence alibi that the said pass book has been obtained by the complainant by way of practicing fraud. Inspite of having the knowledge of this matter, the complainant has not prayed any expert opinion or handwriting expert examination which is urgently required. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant has failed to prove that the complainant has not obtained the said pass book by way of practicing fraud.
It is also important to note that the complainant has not initiated any criminal case against the postal authority for the offences of cheating or for practicing fraud. This matter is clearly reflecting that the case of the complainant is very doubtful. No document has been produced by the complainant to show that the postal authority has been convicted by the criminal court for committing offences of cheating and practicing fraud. A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has failed to prove his case that he deposited Rs.650000/- for keeping the same in the fixed deposit scheme for two years in the office of respondent no.-1 in respect of the above noted account no.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 121 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order is passed as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this judgment be handed over to the both sides of their agents at free of cost as early as possible.
Let this judgment be uploaded in the official website of DCDRC, Hooghly.
