DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  31^st day of  August,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of Filing: 25/11/2020    

     CC/148/2020

Sunitha K.G.

D/o.Gopalakrishnan,

Karakkattil House, Nagarippuram, Mannur,

Nagarippuram (PO), Palakkad – 678 642

(By Adv. M/s. John John &  A. Chenthamarakshan)             -           Complainant

                                                                                    Vs

1. The Post Master,

     Keralassery Post Office,

     Keralassery, Palakkad – 678 641

 2. Post Master,

    Head Post Office,

    Olavakkode, Palakkad – 678 002

3. Superintendent of Post,

    Head Post Office,  Palakkad – 678 001

4. The Government of India,

    Rep. by Superintendent of Post,

    Head Post Office, Palakkad – 678 001                               -           Opposite parties

   (OPs by Authorised Representative)

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant grieves that she is the holder of a recurring deposit account bearing No.2204252 in Sub Post Office, Keralassery. The account matured on 7/6/19 and the maturity amount comes to Rs.5,22,557/-. As the original pass book of the account was missing, the opposite party insisted that the complainant obtain a duplicate pass book. She complied with all required formalities for issuance of a duplicate pass book. But for reasons best known to the first opposite party, a duplicate pass book has not been issued till date. The complainant sought for a direction to the opposite parties for issuance of a duplicate pass book and for disbursement of maturity amount and for incidental reliefs.
2. The opposite parties filed version denying all complaint allegations. They admitted the existence of the RD and the initiation of proceedings for availing duplicate pass book.  Even though the complainant has stated that the pass book was lost, husband of the complainant had informed that he was in possession of the original pass book. Further, family disputes between the complainant and her husband were under consideration of the Family Court, Palakkad as OP 572/2019. The opposite parties were also in receipt of an application seeking temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties from disbursing the maturity amount numbered as IA 1274/2019. It was under these circumstances, that the opposite parties refused to issue duplicate pass book and return the RD maturity amount. They also stated that the complaint is bad  for non jointer of necessary parties as husband of the complainant is also a necessary party for the judicious adjudication of the dispute.   

 3.        The following issues arise for  consideration

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary  party,  namely, husband of the complainant ?
2. Whether the opposite parties ought to have disbursed the maturity amount to the complainant ?
3.   Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
4.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought for?
5. Reliefs,  if any ?

4.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavits and Exts.A1 to A3 on the part of complainant and Ext. B1 to B5 on the part of the opposite parties. Since Ext. B4 is unaccompanied by S. 65B certificate under India Evidence Act, the same is not relied upon.

  Issue No. 1

5.         It is of no doubt that the complainant is the dominus litis.  The complainant can decide who the complainant wants to implead in the party array.  If the complainant is of the opinion that a certain party is not necessary to consider the issue in a dispute, we leave it at the discretion  of the complainant.

6.         If the complainant is of the opinion that her husband is not a necessary party to the dispute, we can very well consider the merits or lack thereof, without her husband in the party array. It goes without saying that any out come arising out of such non impleadment would reflect in the order.

            Hence, we hold that complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

            Issue No.2

7.         Indubitably, the complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as they are not issuing duplicate pass book and for not producing the maturity amount in the Recurring Deposit. Conversely, the opposite parties take refuge under the fact that the husband of the complainant is in possession of the original pass book and that they were served with a copy of application bearing No. I.A. 1274/2019 in OP No. 572/19 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. They also contended that the ground for applying for duplicate pass book was stated as ‘lost’, when, in fact, the same had been in the possession of the husband of the complainant.  They relied on various provisions of Regulations controlling issuance of duplicate pass book to substantiate their case that they had been acting in accordance with law and without any deficiency in service what so ever.

8.         Exts. A2 and A3 are applications dated 25.06.2020 filed by the complainant before the 1^st opposite party. The reason stated for application is that the original pass book is lost.  Ext. B5, copy of Injunction application 1274/2019, is dated 23.06.2019 and predates Exts. A2 and A3. Ext. B5 is an application which pertains to the amounts in the R.D. in question as well as other gold ornaments pledged in some other Bank. The complainant is also arrayed as a party in the said proceedings. Hence the complainant can’t claim ignorance of the proceedings before the Family Court, Palakkad.

9.         As already stated supra, the opposite parties received Ext. A5 notice directing their appearance before the  Family Court on 27.06.2019. From the date of receipt of Ext.B5, they are party to the  dispute, in so far as it relates to the disbursement of the disputed amount. The amounts being the subject matter of a dispute pending before a court competent to decide on the beneficiary of the RD, the opposite party is bound by law to abide by the outcome of the O.P. 572/2019. Even though both the parties agreed that there is no order of injunction restraining the transfer of maturity amount, we consider the conduct of opposite parties to be  proper and legal, arising out of respect for the proceedings in a court of law.

            Hence we hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the conduct of the opposite parties in not issuing a duplicate pass book or in not disbursing the maturity amount of RD to the complainant.

            Issue No. 3

 10.      Pursuant to the findings in Issue no. 2, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

            Issues 4 & 5

11.       Consequently it follows that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

12.       The next question that arises for consideration is whether the opposite parties are entitled for any costs.

            It would be pertinent to have a look at the chronology of the events as illustrated by a reading of the pleadings.

13.       Complainant had notice regarding the proceedings before the Family Court during 2019. Yet she chose to go witch hunting against the opposite parties without a whisper regarding the pendency of proceedings before the Family Court, Palakkad. She also has no case that she was in the dark regarding the proceedings before the Family Court. Even in the proof affidavit, except for a meek statement regarding the opposite parties filing version repudiating her claims, she has not contested the claims of the opposite parties.

14.       In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitancy  to hold that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. This complaint is only a malicious litigation. Accordingly, the opposite party is liable to be compensated. We hold that, the opposite party 1 is entitled to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the complainant.  

            Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the complainant to the opposite party 1.

            This order shall be complied within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st   day of August,  2022.

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                         Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member

                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Copy of  application for opening RD account

Ext.A2  -  Copy of communication dated 25/6/2020

Ext.A3  - Copy of application dated 25/6/20 for issue of duplicate pass book

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 –  Page 95 of Post Office Savings Bank Manual

Ext.B2 – Copy of SB order 03/2020 dt.10/1/2020

Ext.B3 – Original  of Ext.A3

Ext.B4 –  Copy of email communication dated 17/2/2021

Ext.B5 -  Original of Summons and Interim Injunction application bearing No.1274/19 in OP

                572/2019 on the file of Family Court, Palakkad

 Court Exhibit

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Court Witness

Nil

Cost :  Rupees Ten thousand  allowed as cost payable to opposite party 1.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.