The complainant purchased Kishan Vikash Patra of Rs.10,000/- , registration no. 57039 in the name of two minor daughter namely Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley on 3.3.2004. The maturity date of said Kishan Vikash Patra on 3.10.2012. It is further case of the complainant that complainant took a loan from Pahalampur Samabay Samity and for the said loan the abovementioned Kishan Vikash Patra was mortgaged on 23.4.2006 and after repayment of the loan amount on 3.12.2006 he got back the abovementioned Kishan Vikash Patra . On 9.9.2012 the said Kishan Vikash Patra was lost when he was returning home from Baruipara. The complainant lodged G.D.entry in the local Police station on 27.9.2012. That in the month of December, 2013 , the complainant submitted one application with necessary photo copies of
documents to the Post office to get duplicate copy of the said Kishan Vikash Patra . On 21.3.2004 the Op refused to give him duplicate copy. The complainant tried his level best to get the copy of the said Kishan Vikash Patra from the Post Master on 2.3.2015 but no result . Hence this case.
Op no.1 and 2 filed Written version denying inter alia all material allegations attributing deficiency in service but positive case of Op is that the alleged certificate was issued under registration no. 57039 in the name of Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley through agent , code no. 035240 on 3.3.2004 of denomination of Rs.10,000/-. The date of maturity was 3.10.2012. Raju Koley is not investor of the certificate. The Superintendent of Post office told him to bring actual investor but the complainant did not bring his two daughters or anyone of daughters. Finally A.S.P. , Chandernagore Sub Division made a telephonic discussion with Raju Koley and requested to submit NC 29 form to the office for issuance of duplicate, but complainant did not come and made any contact with the Post office ASP or SSP. Accordingly, the complainant has no positive case. The case should be dismissed.
Both parties filed some Xerox copy of documents like G.D.entry, Xerox copy of letter to the Post Master and affidavit in chief and BNA.
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
It is undisputed that the complainant’s two daughter in whose name the said KVP stands is consumer, in general sense. This point is not discussed further.
Point no.2 & 3.
It is admitted position i.e. from the complaint and WV that Op Post Office issued the said KVP for a sum of Rs.10,000/- registration no. 57039 on 3.3.2004 in favour of two daughters namely Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley of the complainant , Raju Koley and maturity date was 3.10.2012. The Superintendent of Post Office told complainant to bring any one of the two daughters namely Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley and also told the complainant to file 39C form, then they shall issue duplicate certificate. In this case, in our hand it is not the case of the complainant that said two purchasers applied before the Post office for getting back the duplicate copy during the scenario of this case Raju Koley has not been found anywhere to say anything regarding the two daughters Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley . It is to be noted that from the record we are in darkness regarding the present status of Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley. No birth certificate, no credential certificate has been filed for the two women or daughter namely Sanaka Koley an Mamata Koley who are admittedly the customer of the oP/Post office because in those two names Post office issued the KVP . So in absence of any
-4-
authorization or in absence of any presence of Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley we are unable to make any favourable order to help the complainant Raju Koley, who is without any status to lodge any claim whatsoever before a Govt. authorities. It is also pertinent to note that what promoted the Postal authority to talk with the complainant Raju Koley requesting him to fill up 39C form in absence of the owner of the KVP , Sanaka Koley and Mamata Koley. It is also pertinent to note that before making any order or discussion , the Post office authority or any authority must talk with the legal guardian, if the claimant is minor and if the owner is major then talk must be done with the owner only. Before parting with the discussion we must direct the Post office authority to go through the law of inheritance and then take necessary step for settlement of any claim not only in this case but also any other claim which arose before themselves. So after deliberation of facts and material before us , we are of opinion that complainant has no locus standi to file this case. As such, the case is dismissed. Hence -
Ordered
That the C.C.Case no. 117 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
