Judgment dt.11-5-2016
This is a complaint made by one Shri Avik Roy against Senior Postmaster, Parnasree Pally Sub Post Office, Senior Postmaster Alipore Head Post Office, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, South Calcutta Division and Postmaster, Goushkara Post Office praying for direction upon the OPOs to submit the statement of accounts in respect of MIS Accounts nos. mentioned in the schedule, direction upon the OPs to make payment of the same to the Complainant along with interest of 12%, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- .
Facts in brief are that maternal grandmother and maternal uncle of Complainant Late Hemlata Ghosh and Dr. Anil Ghosh widow and son of Late S. Ghosh of Rekha Apartment, 3rd floor 564, Parnasree Pally during their life time deposited in the monthly income scheme of the OP vide 12 account nos. mentioned in schedule with OP No.1. Amongst those account six accounts bearing nos.59,781 – 786 were registered in the name of Dr. Anil Ghosh who made nomination in the name of his mother Hemlata Ghosh and other six accounts bearing nos.59,806 – 8011 wherein the joint name of both Anil Ghosh and Hemlata Ghosh appeared. Late Hemlata Ghosh made a will voluntarily on 8-11-1986. The same was registered in Burdwan Additional Sub-registrar’s Office, Burdwan. In terms of the will the testator late Hemlata Ghosh appointed her son Anil Ghosh since deceased and in his absence her daughter Ila Roy, mother of the Complainant as executor and beneficiary of the said will Dr. Anil Ghosh pre-deceased his mother and died on 5.9.2001. Hemlata Ghosh died on 20.4.2002. Ila Roy filed the case Probate No.376 of 2003 before the Ld. District Delegate at Alipore.Thereafter during the continuation of the proceedings one Kinkar Roy appeared in the case and denied the existence of the will. Since the proceedings become contentious the Probate case was numbered as original case No.47 of 2005 before the Ld. District Judge at Alipore which was transferred to Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore.
Unfortunately, Ila Roy died on 17.6.2010 and Complainant was substituted in her place. Unfortunately, Kinkar Roy filed written statement and did not contest the case and so probate was granted in favour of Complainant. Dr. Anil Ghosh has named Complainant’s mother as nominee so Complainant become the executor and beneficiary of the will. Complainant submitted an application claiming the balance of the MIS Accounts in his favour. But did not get any response for more than one year. Complainant sent another letter on 26.11.2013 with relevant documents but of no use. Complainant received a reply on 26.11.2013 requesting him to settle the dispute with Senior Post master , Alipore Head Post Office. But the dispute could not be sorted out. So Complainant felt OPs are harassing him and filed this complaint.
OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainant. Further it is asserted that the MIS stands in the name of deceased Hemlata Ghosh and Dr. Anil Mukherjee both of whom are died. Complainant did not furnish the documents as per postal rules. Complainant did not furnish Post Office Pass Book from which it could have been asserted that Complainant is the real beneficiary. Department is ready to pay interest as per rules. So OP prayed for dismissing the complaint.
Decisions with reasons
Main points for determination is whether Complainant Avik Roy is the real beneficiary and is entitled to the amounts lying in the MIS accounts of late Hemlata Ghosh & Late Anil Ghosh. At the outset we are required to examine as to whether Complainant is a consumer for the purpose of getting the benefits. The definition of consumer is in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per clause 1 Complainant neither bought any goods for consideration which was paid or promised to be paid under any system of deferred payment; Nor he is a user of such goods with the approval of such person. It is because neither late Hemlata Ghosh nor Anil Ghosh authorized Complainant to receive the money from the accounts after their death. If at all it is admitted also that Ila Roy had a will in her favour; the Complainant does not become beneficiary unless he files a succession certificate. There is no mention in the complaint that even Complainant obtained any succession certificate in respect of account lying in the MIS account.
Secondly, Complainant does not appear as a nominee in any of those accounts. So, as per clause 2 also he cannot be said to have hired the services of Post office. Actually those who hired services are no more in this world. Accordingly, any person who succeeds to the estates of Hemlata Ghosh & Anil Ghosh can be beneficiary.
So, we are afraid that Complainant is a consumer and this Forum has jurisdiction to pass any order in favour of the Complainant.
Coming on to the merit of the case it appears that Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint.
Against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant some questions were filed by the OPs which have been answered by the Complainant but those answers do not reveal that Complainant is entitled to the reliefs. Complainant is not aware as to when the accounts were opened. As such it appears that the Complainant being not related directly to the account holders or named as nominee is not entitled to the money lying with the Post Office.
Settled principal of law in such cases is that a person procures a succession certificate and on the basis of that succession certificate the money lying in the accounts are paid to the person in whose favour the certificates are granted.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
RBT/CC/58/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
Accordingly, RBT/CC/58/2016 stands disposed off.
