DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – NADIA
170, DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING
KRISHNAGAR, NADIA.
C.F. CASE No. : CC/2014/04
COMPLAINANT : Dipankar Ghosh
S/o Amalendu Ghosh,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs 1) The Post Master,
Bidhan Park Post Office,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia
2) Kaberi Ghosh (Postal Agent)
10X/93 Kalyani, Dist. Nadia
3) The Superintendent of Post Office,
Nadia (South Division)
P.O. & P.S. Kalyani, Dist. Nadia, PIN – 741235
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 02nd February, 2015
: J U D G M E N T :
The brief fact of the case is that the complainant and his father purchased some KVPs and NSCs from OP / Bidhan Park Post Office. Thereafter, the said certificates were matured. Due to ill health , the complainant’s father handed over the said certificates to OP No. 2 Kaberi Ghosh. OP 2 took the said certificates from the complainant’s father, but she neither reinvested nor returned those to the complainant’s father. Subsequently OP 2 told that the said certificates were lost. A complaint was lodged in Bidhan Park Police Station regarding loss of said certificates. The indemnity bond was deposited in OP / post office. Thereafter, the actual numbers of said certificates were sent to OP 2 (Kaberi Ghosh). After some days OP 2 told that by mistake some NSCs were reinvested in the name of other person and she returned the sum of Rs. 48,000/- in cash without any document and she also told that another sum of Rs. 48,000/- was withdrawn by complainant’s father. The complainant was very much surprised regarding this event as the complainant’s father was not in a position to move here and there. The complainant sent a notice through his advocate to OP 1, but in vain. There is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the claim.
OP Nos .1 and 3 file written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant’s father did not inform the Post Master, Bidhan Park Post Office regarding loss of KVPs before 17/10/2013. What incident taken place between agent and complainant’s father was not known to the post office. That on 27/11/2012, the maturity value of Rs.48,348 /- was paid to Dipankar Ghosh in cash. One year TD account was opened in the name of D. Ghosh and A Ghosh with initial deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- by reinvestment of the maturity value of NSCs bearing regd. No. 9614 dt. 5/9/2006, 9684 dt. 3/10/2006, 9764 dt. 6/11/2006 and 9834 dt. 21/12/06 and rest amount of Rs. 49,455/- was paid in cash to D Ghosh after obtaining his aquittance on the reverse of NSCs.
As per post office records, Sri D. Ghosh one of the joint holders of NSCs tendered the NSCs at Bidhan Park Post Office on 27/11/2012 for payment of maturity value and accordingly the maturity value of Rs. 48348/- was paid to the complainant on 27/11/2012 in respect of NSCs (053517 – 053522) .
Subsequently on 21/12/2012, Sri D Ghosh again tendered the following NSCs at Bidhan Park Post Office.
No. of certificate amount of certificate maturity value of the certificate
053523-053528 5000x6=30000.00 48,510.00 (maturity value)
053638-053647 5000x10=50000.00 80,580.00 (do)
408659-408663 10000x5=50000.00 80,315.00 (do)
409755-409759 10000x5=50000.00 80,050.00 (do)
Total Rs. 2,89,455-00
Out of total maturity value of Rs. 2,89,455/- the complainant / investors applied for reinvestment of Rs. 2,40,000/- for 1 year TD account on 21/12/2012. Accordingly one year TD account bearing No. 46513 was opened at P.O. on 21/12/2012 with initial deposit of Rs. 2,40,000/- in the name of A. Ghosh and D. Ghosh and rest matured amount of Rs. 49,455/- (i.e. 2,89,455-2,40,000) was paid to D. Ghosh in cash after obtaining his acquittance on reverse of NSCs.
Regarding loss of KVPs and NSCs, Sri D. Ghosh applied for duplicate KVPs on 17/10/2013 at Bidhan Park Post Office and those papers were sent to Kalyani H.O. on 17/12/2013. Subsequently Kalyani H.O. has raised some objection and returned the same to Bidhan Park Post Office on 30/01/2014. Thereafter, the Bidhan Park Post Office returned the same to D. Ghosh, complainant on 10/02/2014 with a request for re submitting the papers. There is no fault or negligence on the part of OPs 1 and 3. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
OP No. 2, Kaberi Ghosh (Agent) also files a written version stating inter alia that the complainant’s father handed over some NSCs on 27.11.12. Out of maturity value of NSCs complainant’s father desired to make one year Term Deposit amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/-. Accordingly, after investment one year TD passbook along with balance was given to the father of the complainant. The KVPs, mentioned in SL No. 3 of the schedule were not handed over to OP No. 2. The complainant actually misplaced the same and accordingly lodged a diary at Kalyani P.S. He also applied for duplicate certificates at Bidhanpark post office. There is no gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 2. So the complaint is liable to be rejected with cost.
Now this Forum is to consider the following
Point No. 1. Whether the complainant is to be treated as a consumer or not as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2. Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
Point No. 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not
DECISION WITH REASONS
Perused all documents along with complaint, written versions, written arguments filed by the parties
Point No. 1.
It has become settled by a catena of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble State Commission that whenever a person approaches the jurisdiction of a Forum for the purpose of having any relief, he/she is under obligation to prove, himself / herself to be a consumer. In the instant case the complainant and his father invested some money in post office by way of purchase of some NSCs and KVPs. The said amount was invested through OP 2 agent. So as per status of the complainant and his relationship with the respective Ops, he is treated to be a consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the purpose of this proceedings. Thus, point No. 1 is decided as per above observation.
Point Nos 2 & 3
It is admitted position that the complainant received Rs. 8058x6= Rs. 48348/- on 27.11.12 from the OP post office which is clearly revealed from the reverse side of NSCs (certificate Nos 053517 to 053522) wherein the complainant has endorsed his signature.
It is also admitted position that other six numbers of NSCs (053523 to 053528) have already been reinvested which is clearly revealed from the first and last certificate wherein the top of these two certificates the word ‘reinvestment’ has already been endorsed and the complainant has also endorsed his signature on the reverse side of said NSCs.
It is facts that a diary being GD No. 2199 dtd. 30.01.2013 has been lodged in Kalyani Police Station wherein Amalendu Sekhar Ghosh since deceased stated the loss of 12 NSCs and six KVPs from his custody wherein he also stated that he is entitled to get the maturity amount of Rs. 96060/- + Rs. 1,20,000/- = 2,16,060/- from the OP post office. Amalendu Sekhar Ghosh since deceased also informed above matter to the OP Post Master and prayed for arrangement of fresh certificates so that he can withdraw the maturity amount for the purpose of medical treatment of his wife.
It is fact that the indemnity bonds in respect of KVPs and NSCs have already been submitted in the office of the post office for the purpose of issue of duplicate savings certificate. But till date no duplicate certificates are issued which is not desirable, causing deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of OP post office.
However, it is admitted position that the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was invested in the OP Post Office for one year term deposit on 21.12.12 through opposite party No. 2 (agent Kaberi Ghosh). It appears from the account No. 46513 it is clear that the said amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- has already been matured but till date no maturity amount is handed over to the complainant, causing also gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP post office.
Is should be the duty of OP post office to pay the amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with interest as per norms of post office to the complainant.
Be it mentioned that Amalendu Sekhar Ghosh died on 10.07.14 at IRIS Hospital, Kolkata 47, which is clearly revealed from the death certificate issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Dr. Dipankar Ghosh the complainant in the instant case is only legal heir which is clearly revealed from the certificate issued by councilor, word No. 110, Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The complainant is entitled to get relief as against OP post office only.
Regarding OP No. 2 it is our view that the agent has no power to pay any amount / maturity amount to the complainant. The agent can act on behalf of principal i.e., OP post office only. So OP No. 2 has no liability in the instant case. In this respect Ld. Advocate for OP 2 has referred before us AIR 1999 Bom 401 it was held that the agent cannot be sued or held liable for breach of contract.
The case succeeds.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus decided.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case CC/2014/04 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP Nos. 1 & 3 (Post Office) with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and dismissed against OP No. 2 (agent) without cost.
That the OP Nos. 1 & 3 (Post Office) are hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,40,000/- within 30 days from the date of order with statutory interest from the date of maturity (21.12.2013) till final payment in default maturity amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- along with the calculated interest will carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment.
Apart from the above the OPs 1 & 3 (Post Office) are hereby further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost within 30 days from the date of order in default interest @ 10% p.a. shall be charged upon the said amount also from the date of order till full realization.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
