DATE OF FILING : 02-09-2011.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-01-2012.
1. Basudeb Chandra Dey,
son of Late Satish Chandra Dey,
2. Smt. Sandhya Dey,
wife of Sri Basudeb Chandra Dey,
residing at 33/1, Chatterjeepara Lane,
P.S. Bantra,
District –Howrah-------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT(S)
Versus -
1. The Post Master,
Kadamtala Post Office,
Howrah.- 711101.
2. Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Howrah Division, Kadamtala,
Howrah – 711101.
3. Superintendent of Posts,
Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvanenthapuram South Division,
Thiruvenanthapuram – 695 014.--------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S).
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representatives for the complainant : Shri Samit Basu,
Shri Tanmoy Nath,
Ld. Advocates.
Representative for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3
: Shri Madan Mohan Banerjee,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
2. The complainants have come before this Forum with the prayer for direction upon the o.ps., the postal authority, to disburse the money of the two National Savings Certificates in favour of the complainants, already matured on 25-04-2001 purchased on 05-04-1995 and for the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment with further cost of litigation. As all efforts for disbursing the same proved abortive in spite of furnishing the indemnity bond as is required in the case of lost N.S. Certificates. The cause of action arose on 14-03-2010 when the complainants sent a notice under registered post to the postal authority.
3. The O.P. nos. 1 to 3 in their written version contended interalia that they had no latches on their part ; that the indemnity bond was not furnished for issuing duplicate certificate ; that there is no bar on the part of the o.ps. to issue the duplicate certificate in favour of the complainant if the complainant is ready to submit proper application.
4. Upon pleadings of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the complainants purchased two National Savings Certificates vide nos. 05 EE 779641 and 05 EE 779642 for Rs. 10,000/- each on 05-04-1995, to be matured on 05-04-2011. As those certificates were lost, the complainant visited the office of the O.P. no. 1 and lodged written information on 08-02-2010. On scrutiny of the records we find that the complainants as per requirement filed the indemnity bond on 01-07-2002. As no action was taken on the part of the o.ps. a notice was served through lawyer on 07-09-2011. Having regard to the due diligence of the complainants and documents we are of the view that the complainants are entitled to reimbursement and the postal authority shall not have any bar in reimbursing the same after observing necessary formalities of issuance of duplicate certificates in favour of the complainants. Be it mentioned that the complainant is a senior citizen and octogenarian and it does not look nice that a person of such ripe age shall loiter from pillar to post for getting the benefit of his hard earned money.
Accordingly the petition succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the HDF Case no. 66 of 2011 is allowed on contest against the o.ps. with costs.
That the complainants are entitled to refund sum of Rs. 20.000/- ( Rs. 10,000/- each ) towards the benefit of the two certificates vide nos. 05 EE 779641 and 05 EE 779642 together with interest @ 9% per annum since 01-07-2002 till the date of reimbursement.
The o.ps. do reimburse the same together with interest within 30 days from the date of this order failing the complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
