The complainant files this complaint u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for an order directing the Opposite Party to encash the schedule mentioned certificate as per their maturity value more or less Rs.40387/- along with interest, Rs.40,000/-compensation for causing severe mental agony, anxiety and harassment, Rs.10000/- for litigation cost and other relief or reliefs as prayed.

The case of the complainant, in brief is that she being wife of deceased Ranjan Nayak , the bonafide holder of the schedule mentioned N.S. certificate and KVP’s who died on 11.05.2005 leaving behind the complainant as his widow and only legal heir and successor and accordingly she is entitled to encash the schedule mentioned NSC certificates. The first number of the said certificates being No 6NS/28DD300530 was matured on 21.02.2008 and so after the maturity the date of maturity the complainant applied before the OP for encashment of the same and the prayer of the complainant was sanctioned vide memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008. But since then the complainant has been harassed on several ways on some flimsy grounds and as a result she was compelled to leave bargaining each and every day with the staff of the OP and even scared to apply for encashment of the rest NSC certificates and KVPs inspite of the fact that those were also matured subsequently. It is evident that most of those certificates were matured 6 years back then those can be reinvested for another 6 years and would be doubled. The OP getting the complainant not so educated lady gave false assurances. Getting no alternative she sent a legal notice by her advocate asking the OP to take necessary action for encashment of the schedule mentioned KVPs and NSC certificates within 1 month from the date of receipt of the said notice but inspite of receiving the said notice the OP neither turned up nor gave any reply. So the acts and conduct of the OP transpires unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.

  The opposite party filed written version and denied the allegations as leveled against him and assailed that the office record of Bhadreswar Sub post office speaks that Sakuntala Nayak is the nominee of the certificate as noticed in the schedule of the petition and it is remained undischarged till date. The information regarding the demise of the investor Ranjan Nayak is not available with the office record perhaps due to non supply of such information. The office copy of the sanctioned memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008 could not be traced out with the Bhadreswar sub post office file, due to renovation, reshuffle of records. It appears from the complaint petition that all the certificates both KVPs & NSCs are still under the custody of the applicant. The department can make payment of the undischarged certificates on receipt of claim in prescribed Form from the applicant.

 Complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but the replica of complaint petition and she denied the averments of the OP in his written version.

In the affidavit in chief the OP on behalf of the postal department assailed that as per office record of Bhadreswar Sub post office the complainant is the nominee of the certificates as noticed in the schedule of the petition and it is remained undischarged and till date in the custody of the complainant. The complainant did not supply the death certificate of Ranjan Nayak to sustain her claim as nominee. The department is ready to make payment of the undischarged certificate after the complainant submits death certificate and claim in prescribed Form and the same are found genuine after verification and after observing other formalities.

OP filed brief notes of argument which is taken into consideration for passing final order.

           Argument as advanced by the agents of the parties heard in full.

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1). Whether the Complainant Smt. Sakuntala Nayak is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3).Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4).Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1. Whether the Complainant Smt. Sakuntala Nayak is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant being nominee of the deceased investor is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein is the consumer of the OP, as she is the legal heir of deceased investor, so she is entitled to get the investment proceeds of the deceased from the service provider OP.

(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

       Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/having office address within the district of Hooghly. The complaint prayed a direction upon the OP to encash the schedule mentioned certificate as per their maturity value more or less Rs.40,387/- along with interest, Rs.40,000/-compensation for causing severe mental agony, anxiety and harassment, Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.  

 (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

The case of the complainant is that she being wife of deceased Ranjan Nayak, the  holder of the schedule mentioned N.S. certificates and KVP’s who died on 11.05.2005 leaving behind the complainant as his widow and only legal heir and successor and accordingly she is entitled to encash the schedule mentioned NSC certificates. The first number of the said certificates being No. 6NS/28DD300530 was matured on 21.02.2008 and so after the date of maturity the complainant applied before the OP for encashment of the same and the prayer of the complainant was sanctioned vide memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008. But since then the complainant has been harassed on several ways on some flimsy grounds and as a result she was compelled to leave bargaining each and every day with the staff of the OP and even scared to apply for encashment of the rest NSC certificates and KVPs inspite of the fact that those were also matured subsequently. It is evident that most of those certificates were matured 6 years back then those can be reinvested for another 6 years and would be doubled. The OP getting the complainant not so educated lady gave false assurances. Getting no alternative she sent a legal notice by her advocate asking the OP to take necessary action for encashment of the schedule mentioned KVPs and NSC certificates within 1 month from the date of receipt of the said notice but inspite of receiving the said notice the OP  did not respond.

  The opposite party denied the allegations as leveled against him and assailed that the office record of Bhadreswar Sub post office speaks that Sakuntala Nayak is the nominee of the certificates as noticed in the schedule of the petition and it is remained undischarged till date. The information regarding the demise of the investor Ranjan Nayak is not available with the office record. The office copy of the sanctioned memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008 could not be traced out with the Bhadreswar sub post office file, due to renovation, reshuffle of records. It appears from the complaint petition that all the certificates both KVPs & NSCs are still under the custody of the applicant. The department can make payment of the undischarged certificates on receipt of claim in prescribed Form from the applicant.

 From the above discussions we are in the opinion that the complainant being the legal heir of deceased Ranjan Nayak applied before the OP to get a matured certificate being No. 6NS/28DD300530 was matured on 21.02.2008 and the OP sanctioned the same vide sanctioned memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008 and the complainant several times approached before the OP to get matured amount but the OP did not take any measure to deliver the matured amount to the legal heir of the deceased investor. The complainant being hopeless sent a legal notice through her advocate stating the incident but the OP remained abstain to make any reply or took no effective measure to disburse the matured amount to the legal heir of the deceased investor. Getting no alternative the complainant preferred the recourse of this Forum to get matured amount of the schedule mentioned KVPs & NSC certificates. The OP in his written version, affidavit in chief and written argument admitted that the schedule mentioned investments were not discharged till date and one sanctioned letter being memo No.D2-05/NSC/Claim/BDR/08-09 dated 12.04.2008 issued by the OP post office is missing. So the complainant is bonafide enough to get the investment proceeds of her husband along with interest. The OP is deficient in service towards the claim of the complainant. It is a glare example of deficiency of service of the OP. This complainant suffered huge loss due to inaction or deficiency of service on the part of the OP so the case of the complainant succeeds.        

The general rule is that as and when any person likes the complainant coming forward with a complaint alleging the practice of fraud or willful act or default on any of the officer of the Post Office in question must have to prove the same in order to mulct liability upon such officer against whom the complaint is launched.

    In view of our aforesaid discussion the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is proved on record. This OP is fully responsible for causing suffering to this complainant.

(4). Whether the complainant proved her case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to her?

  The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant proved her case, so the Opposite Party is responsible to compensate this complainant.

ORDER

  Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.02/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

  The complainant is directed to file claim Form along with death certificate of the Investor namely Ranjan Nayak within 15 days from the date of this order before the opposite party.

  The opposite party is directed to disburse the matured values of KVPs & NSC certificates including interest @ 9% since the date of maturity till realization to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

    At the event of failure to comply with the order  the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.100/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

    Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.