Smt. Basanti  Das,

234, Netaji Subhash Road,

Howrah – 711 101.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

The Sr. Post Master,

Howrah Head Post Office,

2, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Howrah – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as the mature value of the M.I.S. Scheme together with 18% interest per annum and for Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation costs.  

The complainant invested a sum of  Rs. 1,00,000/- to Howrah Post Office

under M.I.S. Scheme bearing A.C. no. 70103925 and the complainant was entitled to get payment approximately to the tune of Rs. 1,33,668/- from the O.P. on maturity which was to mature on 10-11-2011. On 12-09-2011 the complainant visited the Assistant Post Master and asked him regarding the maturity. The Assistant Post Master handed over a form and advised him to sign it. Trusting him, the complainant handed over the form after recording his signature. The complainant received a cheque amounting to Rs.1,01,668/- on 12-09-2011 and the complainant was surprised as to why his maturity value became less of Rs. 12,000/- etc. Hence the case.

2.                  The o.p. in the written version contended interalia that the account of the

complainant was opened on 10-11-2005 and was closed on 12-09-2011 before completion of full six years. The complainant closed the account prematurely; that the complainant was well aware about the premature closer of the account. So the case should be dismissed.  

3.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. In deciding the instant

case we are to bear in mind that in duty hours the staff of the post office are burdened with multifarious works together with the maintenance of savings account. In the instant case the complainant went to the post office on 12-09-2011 and asked regarding maturity of his M.I.S. Scheme. Within a short span it cannot be expected that the concerned staff shall consult the relevant registers and apprise him about the exact date of maturity. The staff made over such form with the request to record his signature in the specified zone. Accordingly, the complainant returned the withdrawal form after recording his signature. Subsequently the cheque amounting to Rs. 1,01,668/- was made over to him on 12-09-2011.  

5.      In the instant case the complainant intends to shift the burden of responsibility

upon the O.P., which he cannot. A signed form indicates the willingness of the customer to withdraw the same lying in deposit with the post office. It is not uncommon that some customers withdraw the premature value of the fixed deposit amount. So we trace no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. As per rule of the post office once the account is closed it cannot be revived at the whims of the party concerned. The pass book was lying in the custody of the complainant and so he is responsible for the contributory negligence on his part. He had the last opportunity to scrutinize his pass book and to ascertain as to the date of maturity. On the contrary, he returned the signed form which indicates that he wanted to withdraw the amount in premature condition. So we trace no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. This is fit case for dismissal.   

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 182 of 2013 ( HDF 182 of 2013 )  be  and the same  is dismissed against the O.P. without cost.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah