West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/15/24

BABITA AGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE POST MASTER - Opp.Party(s)

P.D. DALMIA

19 Aug 2019

ORDER

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that she through her father made deposit of Rs. 40,000/- from her savings from different sources at Kurseong Head Post Office, Kurseong, Dist.- Darjeeling and purchased Kishan Vikas Patra four(04) in number each of Rs. 10,000/- with maturity period of six and half years of each and accordingly Assistant Post Sub-Master issued 04 certificates being Nos. 72CC 998069 to 998072 on 10.06.2000 being Registration no. 417.  Nomination No. 4779 payable after expiry of 6¹₂ from 10.06.2000 i.e. as 10.12.2006 amounting to Rs. 20,000 i.e. for each certificate totaling Rs. 80,000/- for four certificates.

Thereafter complainant had to shift from Siliguri to Kolkata so the certificates could not be presented for encashment at earlier stage of maturity on or about 10.12.2006 and the certificates being traced in last part of the year 2013 complainant deposited those before OP- Post Office in the month of the December 2013 for preparation of the cheque as the maturity amount is Rs. 20,000/- each in total Rs. 80,000/-.  OP No. 1 asked to contact after fortnight for collection of the maturity value cheque amount with interest thereon with effect from 10.12.2006 till payment as would be applicable.  On approach for collection of cheque the OP No.1 Post Master told to produce PAN and Voter ID Card.

It is the case further of the complainant that in the meantime the in-laws of the complainant for their convenience or other reason changed the name of the complainant from Babita Agarwal to Sangita Agarwal and accordingly PAN, Voter ID and also Aadhaar Card have been made in the name of Sangita Agarwal and all these documents have been prepared after issuance of Kisan Vikas Patras (herein after shall be mentioned as KVPs) and thus the Post Master refused to accept those documents and asked to bring all those in the name of Babita Agarwal and then only he (OP No.1) would entertain the complainant and hand over the maturity amount through Cheque.

Thereafter an affidavit cum declaration about change of name of complainant was handed over to OP No.1 Post Office for doing the needful.

It is also contended in the petition of complaint that it is not possible to obtain PAN, Voter ID or Aadhaar Card in the name of Babita Agarwal.  It has been calculated in the petition of complaint that the OPs has to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- + Rs. 26,133.00/- (For 4% interest from 10.12.2006 till 09.02.2015 on Rs. 80,000/-) totalling Rs. 1,06,133/- as on 09.02.2015.  It is noted in the present complaint that cause of action of this case arose in month of December of the year 2013 which was continuing till 09.04.2014 when affidavit was deposited to OP No.1-Post office. In fine complainant has prayed for allowing this case in favour of the complainant with direction to the OPs to pay Rs. 1,06,133/- and interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 10.02.2015 till payment and for a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation as against mental agony and torture etc.

The Opposite Parties submitted written version wherein it is alleged that this case is barred by limitation and moreover the instant case is not maintainable.

It is the case of the Opposite Party that as per post office record, one Babita Agarwal had deposited an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- only to purchase Kishan Vikas Patras at Kurseong Mukhya Dak Ghar on 10.06.2000.  Accordingly Kishan Vikas Patras being Nos. 72CC998069 to 78 (10 in numbers) each of Rs.10,000/- and that of nos. 38BB793446 to 53 (08 in numbers) each valued of RS. 5000/- were  issued to Babita Agarwal and written further says that said Babita Agarwal pledged the KVPs (Certificates) with UCO Bank Baruipur It is further contended that the instant complaint mentioned four (04) KVPs  each of Rs.10,000/- were submitted by an unknown person to Kurseong Post Office for encashment of maturity amount but when the signatures of holder of the said certificates kept in office record were verified then those signatures did not tally with the record, thus signatures differed and on notice of difference in signature of the holder with the signature kept in office record the OP No.1 asked for production of Voter ID Card or PAN Card of the depositor but those were not produced.

It is the case of the OPs further that the holder of KVPs, Babita Agarwal did not attend Post office personally to intimate the change in name.   It is mentioned in written version that usually in Hindu Custom, the females after marriage used to use the surname of her husband but in the present case the first (1^st) name of holder has been claimed to have been changed and for which suspicion has arisen and more so the holder has been evading in person to claim the maturity payment to compare her signature and to collect the cheque to that effect from the concern Post Office.  It is stated that in the year 2000 ‘know your customer’ (KYC) System for verification were not introduced by furnishing documents but it has been running system for the present.

It is further contended in the written version that complainant failed to submit any identity proof and Address Proof document of her own or any supporting document(s) to substantiate that as holder she has changed her first name.  Documents which were submitted before OPs are in the name of Sangita Agarwal but not in the name of Babita Agarwal and Babita Agargwal never attended Kurseong Post Office even once due to which the genuineness of the claim of the claim could not be ascertained and so the case could not be settled behind which there exists no fault of OP-Post office authority.  It is categorically stated in written version that amount of maturity of Certificates (4) shall be paid to the genuine holder personally after proper identification of the holder/investor of KVPs by the postal authority, hence prayer has  been made for dismissal of this case as no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs is there.

It is to be noted here that from the side of complainant no evidence in the form of the affidavit-in-chief was submitted or adduced.  But OP-side filed six documents including originals of four(04) KVP- certificates.  OP-side also files examination in chief of one Alok Kumar Das, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office Siliguri, OP-side also filed replies of questionnaires of the complainant and those replies are of one Dawa Sherpa, said to be the at that time Assistant superintendent (Hq) Darjeeling Postal Authority.

Thereafter written notes on arguments have been filed from the complainant as well as from OP-side.

Upon the materials on record and the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed for consideration of this case.

ISSUES.

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and nature?
2. Has there been any deficiency in service from the part of the OP-Postal Authority concerned upon the complainant?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS.

All the three(03) issues are taken up together for discussion and consideration as those are closely related with one another.

The case of the complainant is that complainant made deposit in Kishan Vikas Patra amounting to Rs. 40,000/- through her father Shri Gobindram Agrawal and Assistant Sub-Post Master of Kurseong Post Office issued four(04) certificates to that effect each of Rs. 10,000/- dtd. 10.06.2000 for a period of 6¹₂ years with maturity amount of Rs. 20,000/- each in total Rs. 80,000/-.

But those KVPs were not produced on or about 10.12.2016, the date of maturity which were traced subsequently and thus were deposited with OP No.1 in the month of December 2013.

The OP No.1 told and asked at that time from complainant’s side some documents like PAN and voter Identity Card of the complainant and subsequently those were produced but it appears that those are not in the name of complainant but stand in the name of one Sangita Agarwal.  It is the case of the complainant that after marriage the first (1^st) name of the complainant has been changed from Babita to Sangita Agarwal, so the Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID Card of the Sangita Agarwal have been produced as both names are same and identically of same person. One photocopy of Ration Card and one Affidavit of Babita Agarwal  are also produced.  The ration card does not mention the name of the father of Babita/Sangita Agarwal while it appears that the name of the father as spelled in the cause title/petition of complainant is bit different from that of affidavit filed.  The Ld. advocates for the complainant during argument submitted that Babita and Sangita two names are identical and meant for same person and after marriage at in laws house complainant’s name has been changed to Sangita Agarwal so the Aadhar Card, PAN Card voter ID Card those stand in the name of Sangita Agarwal are of the complainant, Babita Agarwal.

In this context Ld. advocate for complainant submitted one copy of final order/judgment dt. 16.02.2018 in between Darjeeling Head Post Office and two others Vs Rebika Yonzon in FA No. A/1162/2016 passed by Hon’ble State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, West Bengal.

The Ld. advocate on the other hand on behalf of OP-Postal Authority Department  argued that Babita Agarwal, the holder/investor, the present named complainant after maturity never attend concerned post office and it is further argued as per usual Hindu custom females married used to accept the surname of her husband but first (1^st ) name after marriage never got changed and here suspicion starts ended while Babita Agarwal has not come personally to  claim the cheque over maturity to the Kurseong Post Office even after request the documents produced all are in the name of one Sangita Agarwal and in such circumstance, the  present case of the complaint has no legs to stand and moreover the post office is a Govt. Institution dealing with public money can not release any money without verifying the signature of the depositor and without complying the present norms/rules of the Postal Department.

Bearing in mind the arguments of both sides we have meticulously scanned the documents on record.  It is palpably clear that documents i.e. Aadhaar Card, Voter Identity Card and PAN Card are not in the name of Babita Agarwal which show the name of the Sangita Agarwal whose date of birth in PAN Card is mentioned as 17.02.1970 and in Aadhaar Card as 14.02.1970  while in Voter’s ID Card it is mentioned in the year 1970, so it is clear that at the time of investment of money is KVPs, if Babita Agarwal would be the same person as Sangita Agarwal in the year 2000, then she was 30 years old and she was unmarried as appeared from the petition of complainant and then she would have possessed her voter’s Identity Card and even if her 1^st name, has been so changed after marriage from Babita to Sangita, then why not the old Voter’s Identity Card of her at least in photo copy has not been produced  and the complainant side has also not filed any scrap of paper/document such as any application to the appropriate authenticity by virtue of which her first name became changed from Babita to Sangita Agarwal and in that case there must have some document to that effect but not a single document is produced and here the question arises.

Now, we have gone through the referred case of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata and it is noticed that facts and circumstance of this case is different from that case and thus that principle is not applicable here.

In such circumstance of the present case before us we have noticed for the sake of proper justice the case as reported in (2012) 2 CPJ 151 in between BRIGHT TRANSPORT CO. Vs SANGLI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. as decided on 12.01.2012 by our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission wherein it is held “In our view, having regard to the nature and gamut of controversy which is raised in the present complaints, it cannot be decided by a consumer Fora in exercise of its summary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 because the trial of such complaints would require voluminous documentary and oral evidence including cross-examination of various witness and experts, which cannot possible be done by this Commission in such a jurisdiction”.

In that case Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has referred the decisions in this context of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Synoo Industries Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors., as reported in (2002) 2 SCC 1.

It has been further held by our Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the present referred case “We have, therefore no hesitation to hold that the complaint indeed raises very complicated question of facts and law which can only be answered by a regular Civil Court and the complainants should be relegated to the Civil Court to work out their remedy for the entire claim made by them in the present complaint or this Commission can decide upon the claim in regard to which there is no dispute between the parties”.

Similarly, in this instant case before us under the facts and circumstances present we are of the view that such complicated/intricate question of law and facts are involved herein also which can only be answered and decided by a regular competent Civil Court and not by this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Thus under the present facts and circumstances of this instant case before us after giving our thoughtful consideration we are of the view that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable before this District Forum.

Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided against the complainant and thus the other two issues have become redundant and meaningless for discussion and consideration.  All the issues are thus disposed of against the complainant.  As a result, the case of the complainant, fails.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D,

that the instant Consumer Case being No. 24-S-2015 be and same is dismissed as not maintainable and accordingly disposed of on contest.                                                                        

No order as to cost. 

Let a copy of this final order/judgment be given to the parties free of cost at once.