BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is one of the successors of his deceased father Kripasindu Singha (since deceased); and his other brothers & sisters are namely 1. Sumitra Bala Singha, 2. Ritabala Singha, 3. Sahadev Singha, 4. Sukdev Singha, 5. Mahadev Singha. All the six brothers and sisters including the complainant have the same interest against the O.Ps to file this complaint under section 12 C.P.Act . The father of the complainant and his five brothers & sister availed a pass book under Terapakhia post office having Account No. 3300842. This pass book was issued in the name of their deceased father on 28.04.2003 but their father died on 04.03.2013. After the death of their father the complainant & his brothers and sisters wanted to receive and see pass book along with its deposited value up to date. They repeatedly visited at the office of the O.Ps made repeated remainders and even upon the instruction of the Yogayog Bhaban post office to the sub post office for the settlement of the matter. But till now nothing has been done on the part of the O.Ps and the Complainant also submitted the legal heirs/succession certificate to the O.Ps .The complainant wrote a letter to the sub post master on 16.03.2016 for its solution and even to the sub post master Teropakhia on 10.10.2018 also to Head post Master 31.03.2017 and even to the Post Master General Yogayog Bhabon on 05.03.2018. But no result has yet been received. The matter is pending till now and the Complainant being the legal heirs of the said pass book of their deceased father has been trying to recover from hands of postal department. Having found  no other alternative, the complainant and his brothers & sisters, named above preferred a C.C. Case before the Ld. Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, unit-1, Vide C.C. Case No. 357/2018, however, due to lack of proper territorial jurisdiction, the said case was not entertained by the Ld. Calcutta District Forum, and the complainant have been given opportunity to prefer the instant case before appropriate Forum, i.e. before the Ld. Purba Medinipur District Forum and hence this delay. Hence, it is prayed that the  Commission to give direction upon the O.Ps to pay the amount which is remaining in the said pass book with interest in the same pass book to the complainants and to pay Rs. 1,000,00/- (One Lac) as the cost of harassment .

Upon service of notice the ops contested the case by filing written version. The sum and summerisation of the written version are that the case is not maintainable in its present form and in law.  The ops submitted that save and except the statements which are the matters on record all other statements as made in different Paras of the complaint is false, baseless and very much denied and the Complainant is put to the strict proof of all such statements as made in those Paras. It is further submitted that Sri Kripasindhu, son of Debi Pada Singha, Vill. & P.O. Baraghani had Account bearing No. 3300842 standing at Teropakhia SO under Tamluk H.P. It is reported that Sri Kripansindhu sekhar Singha died on 02.02.2013. A deceased claim has been preferred by Sumitrabala Singha Jjointly with Ruitabala Singha (Hui), Basudev Singha, Sahadev Singha, Mahadev Singha & Singha,  to the Teropakhia SO as the case is a ‘NO NOMINAITON’ case as per office records. But, in complaint it has been stated as 04.03.2013 instead of 20.02.2013. The claim application form has been submitted without mentioning any date and it is illegible now the original date of preferring of the claim from the obscure mark of the date stamp. As per Departmental norms and existing rules, the claim has been preferred with all valid supporting documents and all relevant claim papers should be completely and duly filled up in all respects for sanction of the claim. The claim has been received at concerned end with so many discrepancy in documents furnished with claim application.  The claim has been preferred without USED UP Pass Book which is very essential to verification of balance of the Pas Book. So, Claimant has been asked to submit all the USED UP Pass Book to the Teropakhia SO for taking further action to sanction the case vide letter No. D2-101/SB/06/15-16 dated 01.06.2018 and followed by reminder on dated 10.10.2018, the claimant has also requested to contact with SPM, Teropakhia SO for necessary rectification and some reconciliation of the claim papers. But no response has been received till this date from the Complainant and that is very reason the case has been unsettled till now for non submission of proper and all relevant supporting claim papers. But, surprisingly, the complainant claimed that repeated visit has been paid to the concerned Post Office which is not only unjustified but also false ; the complainant demanded  that succession certificate has been submitted but it is completely false. No succession certificate has been received till now. The  annexures  I, II and III have to be submitted when the claimant is unable to produce “succession Certificate”. It is to be stated that the Pass Book was since long ago i.e. on 28.02.1977 and after that Post Office has gradually transformed his working procedure that means manual to off-line Sanchay Post Package and thereafter run in on line CBS system (Core Banking Solution). So, there may have chance some date discrepancy at the time of Account migration in newly system due to some technical error. Internal process is under process at that moment. Ledger correction/rectification is done on 01.10.2018. Some data discrepancy at the time of Account migration in newly system due to some technical error. It is  stated that the case is unsettled so long time due to non submission and non-cooperation of the Complainant by suitable reconciliation of the discrepancy. There is no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. As and when he would submit succession certificate from the authority or to submit the above documents as per letter dated 10.10.2018 the amount will be released. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?              

2.  Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant and from the ends of ops. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transactions with the O.P. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

Now, on careful analysis and evaluation of the materials on record , it appears that the complainant in his  examination-in-chief on affidavit has stated that  the complainant is one of the successors of his deceased father Kripasindu Singha (since deceased ) ; and his other brothers & sisters are namely 1. Sumitra Bala Singha, 2. Ritabala Singha, 3. Sahadev Singha, 4. Sukdev Singha, 5. Mahadev Singha . All the six brothers and sisters including the complainant have the same interest against the O.Ps to file this complaint under section 12 C.P.Act . The question may arise If his six brothers and sisters including the complainant have the same interest against the O.Ps to file this complaint why the complainant alone has instituted this case ;as such the case is bad for non joinder of necessary party. He has also not filed any power of Attorney to show that  his other brothers & sisters have given him the authority to institute the instant case ; on that score also the case is bad in law.

It is evident that complainant preferred a C.C. Case before the Ld. Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, unit-1, Vide C.C. Case No. 357/2018, In the said case the Hon’ble Forum observed Vide order no-2 dated 11.01.2019 …..”Since the concerned Post Office is falling within the territorial Jurisdiction of East Midnapore, therefore we hold this Forum has got no territorial Jurisdiction to file this case as well as the demand made by the concerned post office for production of the succession certificate to release the fund in favour of the complainant is justifiable one…..the  same is dismissed in liminie”.   In the said case all the six brothers and sisters were made party complainants, however in this case this complainant is a sole party. The reason of non addition all the six claimants as party is also best known to the complainant, In the instant case there is no defect in the matter of territorial Jurisdiction. But the complaint again could not understand the findings of the Hon.ble DCDRC Kolkata Unit-I in the matter of  production of the succession certificate. The Complainant has not filed any succession certificate in this case also. The complainant has failed to prove any element of deficiency of service against the ops. We observe that there is substance in the contentions of the ops to the effect that the complainant claimed that repeated visit has been paid to the concerned Post Office which is not only unjustified but also false; the complainant demanded that succession certificate has been submitted but it is completely false. No succession certificate has been received till now. There is no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. As and when he would submit succession certificate from the authority or to submit the above documents as per letter dated 10.10.2018 the amount will be released. The complaint is liable to be dismissed .The cumulative effect of our above observation is that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. The case must fail.

Both the points are decided accordingly.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the CC/504 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops, however without any order as to costs.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to the both parties free of cost.