Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/83

Smt. Rukumani Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office Jeypore - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Sep 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 83/ 2015.                                          Date.   25    .  9     . 2020.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,.                                                                               Member

 

Smt. Rukumani Kar, W/O: Late Sri Narayana Kar, At: J.K.Pur,   Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Sr. Superintendent of Post office, Koraput Division, Jeypore, Dist:Koraput.

2. The  Sub-post Master, J.K.pur post office, Dist: Rayagada.

3.The Post master, Head post office, Rayagada.

4. Sri  S.N.Das, Agent of postal Department,  J.K.Pur, Dist: Rayagda.

                                                                                                ……...Opp.Parties

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps.:- In person..

JUDGEMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of K.V.P. maturity amount to the legal heir/complainant  a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/-.

On being Noticed to the O.Ps the O.P. No.1 appeared  in person before the forum  and stated that being the operational head of Koraput postal Division is competent  to file the reply on behalf of all the   O.Ps   inter alia filed   written  version refuting the allegation made against them. The O.Ps taking one and other pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  written version filed by the O.Ps it is revealed that    one Late Narayana Kar,deceased husband of the complainant Smt. Rukumani Kar had  stated to be invested a sum of Rs.50,000/- on Dt. 18.8.2007 through the O.P. No.4.  The O.P.No.4 had received the money from  Late Narayana Kar   and handed over 5 KVPs of denomination each of Rs.10,000/- bearing Sl. Nos. 71 to 75 (book No. 67, page No. 76, Khata  No. 3). The  complainant had stated after expiry period of 7 years and 6 months, the maturity amount  of KVPs was Rs.1,17,000/- . The said KVPs   was matured on Dt. March,2015 as stated. The complainant  was further submitted that Sri Das taken away  the original KVPs from her, subsequently misplaced the same and  advised the complainant to apply  for issuance of duplicate KVPs. 

On expiry of complainants husband  on Dt. 12.12.2011 the complainant being the claimant of the above KVPs approached the O.Ps 2 & 3 with all legal documents and requested for  issue  of duplicate KVPS.  The O.P. No.2 & 3 refused to issue duplicate KVPs in favour of the  complainant. A peon of the office of O.P. No.2 named Sri Dora assured the complainant  to help her and he took Rs.12,000/-from the complainant and her son. The complainant reported the matter to the O.P. No.2 who again teared down the claim of the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the O.Ps have intentionally deprived  her  of the authentic and   legal dues being the statutory authorities.  The O.P. No.1 contended that   the above narration  of the complainant  is her fantasy and self hallucination as the facts submitted  are her imaginative  and unworkable submission  as the same is not in accordance with the records  of the O.P. No.2.   The complainant’s  husband had stated to have purchased the KVPS on Dt.18.8.2007 from the O.P.No.2 through  one Sri S.N.Das, Postal Agent. But the fact is that no KVPS were issued by the O.P. No.2 from  14.8.2007 to 29.8.2007 as per office records. The photocopy of E-mail message of the O.P. No.2   confirming the same is marked  as Annexure-I.   The O.P. No.2 did not issue any KVP on Dt.18.8.2007 as per office records.

Further  maturity period of KVPS  as on 18.08.2007  was 8 years 7 months after  which the KVPS  face value of Rs.50,000/- becomes Rs.1,00,000/- but not Rs.1,17,000/- as stated in the complaint.  As per report of the O.P. NO.2 no agent named S.N. Das was available to procure business at J.K.Pur post office  on Dt. 18.8.2007. (Attested copies of E-mail message dtd. 20.8.2015 of the O.P. No.2 stating non engagement of any agent named Sri S.N.Das is  available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

The O.P.No.2 did not issue any KVP on Dt.18.8.2007 in favour of the deceased husband of the complainant. It is to add that the KVP was issued vide Regd. No.  6055 Dt. 13.8.2007 by the O.P.No.2 was issued vide Regn. No. 6055 Dt. 13.8.2007 by the O.P. No.2 and there after it was issued on on 30.8.2007 vide Regn. No. 6056 in the name of the other investors. (Copis of the said KVP  are available in the file which are marked as Annexure-3  and Annexure-4).  Further there is no such peon named Dora employed  at J.K.Pur post office as mentioned  by the complainant  in their complaint petition.

The main grievance  of the complainant is that for  non payment KVP maturity  value  which  was deposited by the late husband Sri Narayana Kar. Hence C.C. petition  filed by the complainant.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the sole question of determination is  Whether  the complainant is entitled  to  KVP maturity value ?

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of her claim.  When material  facts  pleaded by the complainant in support of her claim have been denied by the  O.Ps the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there for, but she has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, which is no evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to her claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant vis-à-vis  non satisfaction of her    claim is  devoid of any merit.

Further on perusal of the written version filed by the O.Ps  it is  revealed that the  complainant who approached this forum has intentionally  suppressed the fact and she has not approached this forum  with clean hands.  Further   it is observed that the prima-facie there is no ground for the complainant to initiate the present case  with false averments and concocted version without any material documents. The averments of the O.Ps. with supporting documents  was not denied by the  complainant. Again it is observed  the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. It is observed the complainant has suppressed the material facts and as such she is not entitled to any relief.

In  view  of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding, that the complainant has miserably failed  inter alia  there is no iota of any  cogent  evidence filed by the complainant before the forum to prove  its case, that  she  had made  any  correspondence  to the O.Ps.  Hence at present in this    case   no liability  can be fastened  by the complainant  on the O.Ps. without documentary evidence.

 

            In this back ground, we find no merit in this case to demand compensation to the O.Ps by  the complainant in shape of C.C.petition U/S- 12 of the C.P. Act,1986.

            This forum observed the complainant has not substantiate any evidence that the O.Ps have not acted pursuant to the terms and conditions of the K.V.P.. In absence of any evidence the present  petition  shall be dismissed.

In  view  of  our above observation, finding, evidence on record it is concluded that the  complainant miserably  failed to establish her  claim before the forum  and hence  the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps.  

Further on perusal  of the record  this forum observed  the  case involves complicated  question of facts   and law  and requires volumes evidence, the examination and cross examination of the  parties   and witnesses and the present complaint  can not be decided in a summary manner.

For better appreciation  this forum relied citation in the above case which are mentioned  here.

             It is held and reported  in CPR  1991  (1) page -2  the Hon’ble  National Commission  where in   observed  “Section 2(i) ©- complaint petition- complicated  issues of fact involving    taking of oral and documentary evidence – cannot   be determined under this act- Civil  suit proper remedy- the procedure for disposal of  complaints   under the act  has been laid down in  the  Section – 13   of act sub-section –II,  III of the section shows  beyond doubt  that the statute does not  contemplated the determination  of complicated issues of  fact involving   taking of elaborate oral evidence and  adducing voluminous  documents  evidence  and detailed  scrutiny and assessment of such evidence. The Hon’ble  Commission   further observed   It is true that  the forums  constituted under the  act are vested with the  power to  examine witness on oath and to  order discovery and production of documents.  But  such power is to be exercised  in case  where the   issues involve are simple, such  as the  defective quality  of any goods  purchased or any short coming  are inadequacy in the   quality  nature of manner of performance  of service  which the respondent  as contracted to perform for consideration.  The  present case  can not be determined without   taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence. 

In view of the order passed by the  Apex Court  the complaint filed in the present case before the forum to get compensation is not maintainable under the C.P. Act, 1986. As the case  is  not maintainable before the forum we need not discussed merits of the case.  Accordingly, without  going into the merits of the case, this forum dismiss  the above complaint petition  with liberty to the complainant to seek appropriate remedy available to her before the appropriate forum.

To meet the ends of justice  the following order is passed.

ORDER

In resultant the complaint petition     stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

           

             The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act,1963.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of  charges.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced in open forum today on this  25th  day of   September, 2020 

under the seal and signature of this forum. 

 

Member                                            Member.                                                President