Judgment On 31.03.2006
Present. Sri B.K. Samanta, President.
Sri S. Paul, Member
This is a case for claim and compensation.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant claimed for issuing duplicate KVP against the loss of 3 Nos. of
KVP. 1. Regd. No. 7264 dt. 08.05.1996. Rs.5000/-
No. 8348 dt. 28.11.1996Rs.5000/-
No. 10410 dt. 29.09.1997 Rs. 10,000/-
The complainant purchased the same from the Office of the respondent No.2 The Complainant while shifted from the Khukurdaha to Haldia for the purpose of his business, he any how lost the above 3 Nos. KVP from his custody. The complainant after collecting the Regd. Nos. from the office of the Respdt. No.2 i.e. the Khukurdaha S.O. applied to the Respdt. No.1 through the Respdt. No.2 on 24.05.2002 for getting duplicate certificates against the lost KVP mentioned above. The Resptd. No.2 forwarded the application to the Respdt. No.1 for taking necessary action on his part for issuing the duplicate certificates in dispute. After a lapse of about one year and 10 months and after several visits to the Respdt. The respondent No.1 lastly responded by issuing a letter under his M No. D-6/225/3/K/2003-2004 dt. Tamluk 05.03.2004 where by the advice the complainant to submit formal application in their Form No. 29 and to deposit Rs.3,00 for duplicate certificate. The complainant accordingly submitted the application in form No.29 on 22.04.2004 along with required papers and deposit Rs.3/- in the office of the Respdt. No.2 on 22.04.2004 vide receipt NO. 009 and completed all formalities as sought for. The respdt. No.2 then and there forwarded all those papers to the office of the Respdt. No.1 send a letter to the copplainant dated 20.05.2004 whereby he directed the complainant to submit Indemnity Bond on stamp paper worth Rs.50/- as per their format. The complainant duly furnished Indemnity Bond with surety. The respondent No.1. no positive response from the Respondents, the complainant thereafter sent notices to the Respdts. Dt.20.06.2005 demanding issuing KVP to negligence of the respondents the complainant has suffered loss and damages amounting to Rs.15.000/-
Under the circumstances the complainant claimed for refund of Rs.40,000/- the total maturity value of 3 Nos. KVP and interest @ 18 per annum from the date of maturity and damages for harassment amounting to Rs.15,000/-.
The OP contested the case by filing a written statement wherein he denied the material allegation of the case and also stated that the complainant applied for duplicate copy of KVPs on 04.03.2004at Tamluk HPO. The Post Master, Tamluk by his letter dated 05.03.2004 the complainant submitted application to KHukurdaha SPO. On 20.05.2005 the Post Master, Tamluk HOP directed the complainant to submit Indemnity Bond on stamp paper worth Rs.50/-. The Indemnity Bond and surety were submitted to Tamluk HPO who in turn sent those records to the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Tamluk on 22.09.2004. the Supdt. Of Post Offices, Tamluk asked the SDI(P) to enquire and submit report after verification. The SDI(P) submitted his report on 10.08.2005. In his report some discrepancies in date of issue of a certificate and about authenticity of the changed address. It is to be noted that an A/C payee cheque No. N-872384 dt. 20.09.2005 for Rs.42681.00 has been issued for payment of KVPs urgently and sent to SPM/Khukurdaha for delivery.
Under the circumstances, the OP prays for reject the complainant. Points for decision.
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision
Point No.1 It is the case of the complainant that he is the consumer under the OP. The Op admitted it. So we can say that the complainant is the consumer under the OP.
Point No.2 It is the case of the complainant that he lost the KVPs which was purchased from the OP and he applied for duplicate copy, on 24.05.2002. but the OP in his reply stated that the complainant applied for duplicate KVPs ON 04.03.2004. The letter of the complainant (EXbt.1) which was forwarded to the HPO, Tamluk on 24.05.2002 clearly shows that the complainant’s claimed for duplicate certificate on 24.05.2002 not on 04.03.2004. Practically, it can be said that the complainant applied for duplicate certificate of KVPs on 24.05.2002 but action taken by the HPO< Tamluk on 05.03.2004. which is evident from the W/S filed by the OP. It shows that the action taken by the OPs after a lapse for about more than one year. The written statement filed by the OP clearly shows that the OP issued direction to the SDI(P) on 22.09.2004 for enquire and submit report. The report submitted on 10.08.2005. It also took more than 10 months for submission of enquiry report. From the affidavit in reply of the complainant we can find that the complainant admitted that he received duplicate KVPs on 15.09.2005 I the written statement it is evident that one of the KVP No. 834 dt. 28.11.1996 is wrong in date which is likely to be dated 29.11.1996. This is not denied by the complainant. From the above circumstances, and forgoing discussions it can be said there is some discrepancies in mentioning the date of one KVP but action taken by the OP is no doubt at a very late stage which is not at all desirable. Moreover, the case has been filed in July, 2005 and the order for payment has been made in Sep[t. 05 i.e. after filing this case which clearly shows that the complainant has been compelled to filed the case for having duplicate KVPs. Ultimately, the complainant got the same at a very late stage. This is not doubt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Point No.3 From the forgoing discussions and materials on record, we can say that the complainant is entitled to have relief i.e. compensation from the OP.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP. The complainant has received the amount of KVP. So he is entitled compensation to the extent of Rs.5,000/- only from the OP. The OP is directed to pay the same by one month from this date failing which the complainant is entitled to have the same by way to execution after expiry of the period mentioned above.
