By : SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

          The story of the complaint case in short is that  the complainant  is  a poor illiterate person and reside ion a hut under the Railway bridge at Rajgoda. He purchased a number of kVP from the Op no.1 of which the OP 2 and 3 were the authority. The said certificates were totally damaged by white ants  and to that effect the complainant lodged a GD at Tamluk PS.  The complainant repeatedly requested the OPs for issuing duplicate certificates but the OPs did not care to do so. Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint with the prayers as made in the complaint.

        The OP no.2  appeared to contest the case by filing separate written versions as well as written notes on arguments and denied all the material allegations of the complaint petition. The specific case of the OP No.2 is that the certificates of the complainant might be missing  from the custldy of the complainant but for non submission of correct details of the certificates Panskura post office could not trace out the certificates and duplicate certificates are issued  on application on prescribed forms and other relevant  documents like indemnity bond, security etc. It is further case of the OP that the number of the certificates furnished by the complainant before the Panskura PO does not find place ion the post office. So, no action could be taken issuance of the duplicate KVP. On the grounds above, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint petition.

        The point for consideration in the case is whether the complainant petition is maintainable and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

         Decision with Reasons.

          We have perused all the documents filed by the complainant and the Op No. 2 and also given out anxious thought over the complaint made by the complainant. 

          The complainant  has alleged that the maturity value of the KVP certificates is Rs. 65,000/-  and it has not been paid  by the OP  no.2 to the complainant in spite of the fact that the complainant informed the OP no.2  that his certificates were lost due to eaten by white ants. In this case the OP has submitted rules regarding release of duplicate certificates. According to this rule in case of defacement or mutilation of any certificate  a holder is asked to furnish a statement in writing giving particulars  of the certificates explaining the circumstances in which  the theft, loss, destruction, mutilation or defacement occurred besides giving  the particulars  of the certificates such as the Number, the date etc and in case  where mutilated or defaced certificate is surrendered along with the identity slip lf any, and the certificate is capable or being identified  as the one originally issued, duplicate certificates will be issued without any indemnity bond irrespective  of the amount involved. Regarding issue of duplicate certificate Section 44 (1) of the Postal Act says that - The Head Post Master  should make necessary enquires in connection with the issue of delicate certificate(s) and satisfy himself by a reference to the original application for purchase/transfer that the certificate(s)  still stands un-discharged. And Section of that Provision says – As soon  as the necessary inquiries are complete, an indemnity bond obtained and no discharge certificate received where necessary, the Post Master will issue a duplicate certificate(s) overprinted with the words “Duplicate issued in lieu of “. The original certificate No. and the date of issue should be noted on the top of the duplicate certificate.

            It is admitted by the  ld advocate for the OP-2 that the OP no.2 has not issued the five KVP certificates mentioned in the complaint.   The OP no.l2  is responsible  for  causing inquiry into the matter  and to issue the same and to pay the matured value  of the certificates to the complainant. The OP 2 has stated that they have already issued duplicate certificates which were correctly furnished but can not issue the duplicate certificates where the No of the certificates are not available in the Post Office and also the complainant has not made any application for issuance of the duplicate certificates.

       In the above circumstances, we are of the view that OP no.2  should enquire  into the matter and immediately issue duplicate certificates which are not still issued to the complainant  or to pay the matured value of the said certificates.  We do not find any serious deficiency in this case on the part of the OP No.2 and so, we do not impose any compensation against the OP-2.

         Hence, it is

Ordered

           That the C.C No. 346/16 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no 2 and ex parte against the other OPs.     

          The OPs specially the OP no2  is directed to issue duplicate certificates  of the KVP Nos as mentioned  in the Col. 3 of the complaint petition  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order or to pay  the matured value of the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum  from the date of this order till full realization of the amount.

       The OPs are also directed to pay litigation cost  of Rs. 2000/-to the complainant within one month from the date of passing of this order in default the OPs have to pay punitive charge of Rs. 100/- per day which would be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

              Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of costs.