Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.233/26.09.2017
Narender Kumar son of Late B.S. Dewan
r/o. 21-B/8 New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh
New Delhi-110005 ...Complainant
Versus
The Sub-Post Master,
Post Office- Karol Bagh
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 …Opposite Party
Senior Citizen Case
Order Reserved on: 08.02.2023
Date of Order: 07.03.2023
Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
Inder Jeet Singh
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to case and consumer dispute of parties) : Precisely, the consumers dispute is that on 17.01.2015, the complainant had deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- in his saving account no. 2870890 (now CBS no.2776323284), maintained with Post Office Karol Bagh New Delhi. He had been maintaining and operating the account by way of deposits and withdrawals, entries of transactions were also made in his pass-book. When on 09.02.2016, he went to withdraw amount from his account, OP refused withdrawal because of insufficient/low balance, despite there was credit balance of Rs.26,437/- in his account. The complainant protested it, however, OP took different stand like there was a wrong entry of deposit in his passbook, then another stand that reverse entry has been made in the account or the entry was deleted, or no cash was deposited by him on 17.1.2015 or another account holder had deposited a cheque but credit entry was wrongly made in his accoun. There is deficiency of services on the part of post office.
1.2: Whereas the opposite party opposed the complaint that the complainant never deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- on 17.01.2015 in his account but credit entry was made by mistake in the account of complainant and that entry was rectified in June 2015. As a matter of fact, the cheque was deposited by another account holder by wrongly writing the account number of complainant, it was credited into the account of complainant and it remained un-noticed and after inquiry is was found that the dealing assistant had made wrong entry. There was no deficiency of services on the part of opposite party.
2.1: (Case of complainant) - The complainant is a senior citizen and he retired from State Bank of India. In January 2014, he opened saving account no. 2870890 [now CBS 2776323284] in Post Office of Karol Bagh, New Delhi. On 17.01.2015 he deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- in his saving bank account and deposit entry was also endorsed in the passbook (passbook at page 18-21 to paper-book). After this deposit, the credit balance in his account was Rs.1,01,437/-. The complainant withdrew Rs.5,000/- on 12.03.2015; Rs.5,000/- on 02.01.2016; Rs.30,000/- on 05.02.2016 and Rs.35,000/- on 06.02.2016 and on such withdrawals, the credit balance amount was respectively Rs.96,437/-, Rs.91,447/-, Rs.61,437/- and Rs.26,437/-. On 09.02.2016, when complainant went to withdraw a sum of Rs.25,000/- from his saving account, the dealing clerk refused the complainant and advised that there was insufficient amount in the account, whereas there was clear credit balance of Rs.26,437/-. The complainant wrote a letter to the post office on the same very day (page no.22 of paper book) but he was advised that entry of Rs.20,000/- was deleted from the ledger account by the head office. It was 18.02.2016, when complainant received reply (page 23) to his letter/application dated 09.02.2016 and complainant was informed that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was not found deposited in the saving bank account and complainant was asked to furnish proof of the deposit of said amount, whereas complainant had already furnished copy of passbook & cheque presented withdrawal along with application of 09.02.2016 and the entry in the passbook is showing deposit of the amount. (passbook is at pages 18-21).
2.2: Thereafter, there was thorough correspondence by the complainant to post office, its higher authorities and Directorate of Public Grievances. The complainant received OP's reply/letter dated 18.2.2016 (page 23 of paper book) that on inquiry by OP it revealed that amount of Rs.20,000/- was not deposited by complainant and entry of Rs.20,000/- was wrongly entered in the pass-book of complainant. Another response dated 29.3.2016 (received from Sr. Superintendant of Post Office, New Delhi Central Division at page 27) was that as per report of PO Karol Bagh, cash of Rs.20,000/- was not deposited by complainant in his account no. 2776323284 and entry was wrongly made in his passbook, whereas it was related to another SB Account and complainant was asked to provide proof of deposit of amount in his account. Another reply dated 09.05.2016 (received from Sr. Superintendant of Post Office, New Delhi Central Division at page 28-29) that inquiry was conducted, which revealed that amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by another customer in the SB A/c no.2870590 by cheque which was wrongly posted in complainant's account no.28708890 and reverse entry was done. For reverse entry it is internal-departmental paper (at page 29). Then, another reply dated 01.12.2016 (received from Sr. Superintendant of Post Office, New Delhi Central Division at page 33) was of reiterating the previous plea as well as explaining that there was CBS migration of data, there was neither deposit of cash of Rs.20,000/- nor cheque by the complainant and the discrepancy was removed by deleting the entry, apart from the complainant's case was 'closed'. Thence, one more letter/reply dated 23.02.2017 (received from Sr. Superintendant of Post Office, New Delhi Central Division at page 50) was also of referring previous letters dated 09.05.2016 & 01.12.2016 that it was not a online reversal entry but it was a correction entry, which was done at the time of removing CBS discrepancies.
2.3: The complainant has referred, discussed and analyzed the correspondence in the complainant by that roaming stands were being taken by the OP to shield its irregularities and deficiency in services. There are wrong and false pleas taken by OP. How new entries could be by migration to new system, if the entries were not existing in the old system/manually maintained record?. The plea of another account does not sustain as per own record of OP in respect of other account holder, whose account was already credited on 16.1.2015 in respect of her cheque, whereas the complainant had deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- on 17.1.2015, which is subsequent to 16.01.2015. The complainant has also analyzed that in no manner, either from daily end calculation or by otherwise, it can be concluded or inferred that there was wrong entry. The complainant is being denied his hard earned income as well as interest accrued thereon. After, exhausting of all efforts, when no option was left, the complainant through his lawyer sent legal notice dated 01.05.2017 (at page 52) to the OP and other authorities, it was responded by reply dated 25.05.2017 of Assistant Director (Admn.) GPO New Delhi (at page 64) and in its paragraph no.8, it was stated "that paragraph no. 8 of legal notice was not acceptable as no deposit of Rs.20,000/- was made on 17.1.2015 by Karol Bagh Post Office, therefore, deletion of entry of Rs.20,000/- by this office is not tenable". The reply reflects another aspect, which is contradictory to what was told to the complainant by officials of OP.
2.4: The complainant seeks refund of Rs.20,000/- of his deposited amount, interest @ 18% pa from 17.01.2015, compensation of Rs.40,000/- and costs of the proceedings against OP. Since amount was not returned, the complaint was filed. The complaint is accompanied with documentary record of copies of passbook, correspondence exchanged, legal notice and its reply, records- Finacle.
3. (Case of OP) : The OP [Sub Post Master, Post Office Karol Bagh] filed its written statement on 19.12.2017 and opposed the complaint. Succinctly, the complainant (Narender Kumar, of 21 B/8 New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh) had not deposited of Rs.20,000/- in his account nor he produced proof of deposit when later asked for. It was related to another saving account no.2870590 in the name of Ms Indu Arora (r/o I 74B Pocket 1 Dilshad Garden New Delhi-110095); on 10.01.2015 she had deposited a cheque no.575207 dated 10.01.2015. Later she produced slip no.103 of deposit of said cheque in the office of OP, her account no.2870590 was corrected on its face and its reverse in place of account no.2870890 mentioned thereon. However, ND-HO cleared the cheque for account no.2870890. This irregularly was clearly mentioned in the computerized ledger, after migrating the data into new computer system. When the irregularity came into notice, it was reversed/deleted on 03.06.2015 from the system. Whereas, the complainant is trying to take undue benefit from a wrong entry made in his pass-book. The reply is accompanying record of copies of slip of 10.01.2015, photocopy (of front and overleaf) of cheque dated 10.01.2015 in favour of Indu Arora, computerized one page sheet account of complainant and also one page sheet of Indu Arora, transactions sheet of 17.1.2015 of Karol Bagh PO. The OP requests that complaint deserves dismissal.
So far withdrawals of amount are concerned, they are not disputed by the OP nor the reply to legal notice.
4. (Replication of complainant) : The complaint filed his replication, he denies allegations in the written statement and the complainant re-affirmed his complaint correct. He also filed calculation sheet that had the amount Rs.20,000/- been in credit of his account, he would have even earned interest on that amount, which was denied to him by the OP because of deficiency in services.
5.1 (Evidence) : The complainant led his exclusive evidence by filing detailed affidavit, the record filed with the complaint has been made part of evidence.
5.2: On the other side, Shri G C Pant, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi Central Division, Meghdoot Bhavan, New Delhi; led evidence by affidavit and referred/relied upon the documents filed with the reply
6.1 (Submission of Parties) : Both the sides have filed written arguments followed by their respective brief synopsis. OP has also supplement by mentioning date 12.01.2015 in brief synopsis [in relation to impugned cheque of 10.1.2015], that intimation was sent for crediting the account no.2870890.
6.2: At the time of oral hearing, submission were by Shri Deepak Z. Mehta, Advocate with complainant and Shri Rahul Kashyap, Advocate with Sanjay Bora, Postal Assistant for OP. Complainant's counsel also presented a newspaper cutting of 2.9.2019 (of similar type of episode under the heading 'Dozens cheated of Rs.18 lakhs in 'scam' at S Delhi post office' ) apart from Guidelines of RBI in respect of mentioning of details and entries in Passbook of Banks. Similarly OP's counsel also presented specimen copy of passbook containing instructions & other instructions mentioned in POSB (CBS) Manual [corrected upto 31.12.3021] in respect of status entries in Passbook. All of them will be referred appropriately while discussing the case of parties.
7.1 (Findings) : The rival contentions of both the sides are considered, keeping in view material on record, majority of them are documentary in nature. Before proceedings to appreciate the rival case of parties, it needs to discuss at first instance. for the sake of clarity. about the nature of documents and development took place from time to time.
7.2: Initially the record was being maintained manually and later-on it was migrated to new/computer system. The complainant's account no. is 2870890 (in new system it is CBS a/c no.2776323284). Similarly, Indu Arora's account is 2870590 (in CBS it is a/c no.2776320443). Both of them were maintaining their accounts with Post Office Karol Bagh New Delhi. Although, the complainant Narender Kumar is resident of - 21 B/8 New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh and other account holder Indu Arora is resident of - I 74B Pocket 1 Dilshad Garden New Delhi-110095
Secondly, the status of parties as well as record produced shall also be kept in mind. The complainant is account holder and OP is Post Office, where complainant has been maintaining saving bank account. An account holder may go and stand in front of counter of Post Office either to deposit or withdraw or entries in the pass-book; the possible records will of counter foil of deposit slip, or cheque of withdrawal or withdrawal form. On the other side of counter of Post Office, the possible record will be receipt of amount with deposit slip, or cheque or withdrawal form by the officers/officials, apart from daily entry record, scroll register, ledger etc. However, such record are maintained & kept by the Post Office, its officer and officials. However, account holders have no access to them, whether or not entries are affected then and there or later-on or otherwise.
In this case, the records were initially maintained manually and on the impugned date of 9.2.2016, the record was also maintained manually. However, the written statement of OP does not narrate it specifically but narration in the written statement is on the basis of computer generated ledger, although documentary record spells it out existence of manually maintained record. With this preliminary analysis and conclusions, further discussion can be proceeded with.
7.3: The complainant's case is that he had deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- in his account and the entry was also issued in his pass-book, he had also operated his account too. The documentary record of passbook itself sufficient, since pass-book was produced from time to time and entries were also endorsed on the basis of ledger maintained by the OP. It is also submitted that generally one does not keep deposit slip after obtaining entry in the pass book of deposits made, since entry in pass-book ensure and authenticate that amount deposited has been credited into account. The guide-lines issued by RBI also mandates for proper entries in the pass-book and in case any entry is to be reversed because of wrong credit, the instructions are very much clear that reasons are to be given in brief for such reversal, apart from date of credit entry reversed.
On the other side, OP's case is that complainant never deposited amount Rs.20,000/-on 17.01.2015 in his saving account, there was wrong entry made by the dealing assistance and complainant is trying to take benefit thereof. That entry of 17.01.2015 cannot be accepted and to be acted upon. OP relies upon POSB (CBS) Manual and refers rule no.4 that information and entries shown in the Passbook is for information of public and there will be no legal liabilities of the Department with regard to the balance or transaction shown in the passbook.
Then, what actually happened ? Whether proposition of complainant or of OP exists? It needs to scrutinize the documentary evidence to proceed with sequence of events happened.
7.4.1: As per complainant's case, on 17.01.2015 he had deposited cash of Rs.20,000/- in his account and then total credit balance amount came to Rs.1,01,437/-. Thereafter four more transaction of withdrawal had taken place on different dates till 06.02.2016 and thence on 09.02.2016, the OP had not entertained the complainant's request of withdrawal of Rs.25,000/-, whereas there was credit balance of Rs.26,437/- , which was also shown in the pass-book [page 19-21 of paper book]. On the other side, OP's case is that a wrong entry was done in the pass-book of complainant by mistake.
Further, on 10.01.2015 a cheque of Rs.20,000/- was presented with pay-in-slip by Ms Indu Arora, another account holder, however, later she came to write her correct account number on pay in slip, since she wrote some other account number, which happened to be of complainant. It was followed by correspondence between the parties. This stand of parties needs to further analyzed, the actual entries are in record, as the mute record available is speaking volume and it is being jotted down as follows, which themselves are reasons for conclusions:-
[i]. on 17.1.2015 and onwards the post office was maintaining the record of ledgers and pass book manually; it was migrated to new system on computer at later point of time in 2016. The entries in the pass-book of complainant are upto 06.02.2016, they are written manually and there is no dispute that the same were posted in pass-book by the officer/officials of OP supplemented with logo official standard stamp of Post Office;
[ii]. the OP has not placed on record the then manually maintained ledgers of complainant as well as of Ms Indu Arora. However, computerized ledger account [after migration of record to new system] of complainant and of Ms. Indu Arora were filed with reply by OP. Moreover, at the time of filing of brief synopsis on 13.10.2022, record of intimation of 12.01.2015 for Karol Bagh was also filed [being first sheet] first time to show business of transaction of deposits and withdrawal;
[iii]. On 09.02.2016, the complainant was refused to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/- because of insufficient amount in the credit of his account and complainant protested it by writing letter. It was responded by letter 18.02.2016 by OP [page 23 of complainant's paper-book] that amount of Rs.20,000/- was not deposited by complainant and entry of Rs.20,000/- was wrongly entered in his pass-book.
By cursory look to the pass-book, it is clearly showing 05 entries from 17.01.2015 to 06.02.2015. OP maintains the books of account/ledgers, which are and remains in the custody of OP. The entries in the pass-book are entered on the basis of entries in its ledgers/books of account maintained. Thus, it is not a case of single entry of Rs.20.000/- of 17.01.2015 but there are also 04 more entries subsequent to 17.01.2015, which are of different dates. However, OP's Post Master's letter dated 18.2.2016 [which is after aforementioned five entries] suggests that a single entry of 17.01.2015 was wrongly entered in the pass-book. The other 04 entries are correct. It is never the case of OP that entries of transactions (inclusive of interest) are independently computed and entered into the passbook. irrespective of entries in the ledger book maintained and possessed by OP. Whereas, the evidence of OP also suggest that ledger books are maintained by OP, that too on the principle of double-entry accounting method;
[iv]. norms being followed are that what entries are existing in ledger account of OP, the same are reproduced in the pass-book of an individual account holder;
[v]. then in letter dated 29.3.2016 (at page no.27) by Sr Superintendent of Post Office another proposition was put that entry in the pass-book was wrongly made and it was related to other saving bank account. Again, this letter is after aforementioned five transaction. The OP has improved new version from its previous stand, the complainant was asked this time to show the proof of deposit of that amount;
[vi] in another subsequent letter dated 09.05.2016 (page 28) by Sr. Superintendent of Post Office put third proposition that a sum of Rs.20.000/- was deposited by another customer of account no. 2870590 by a cheque, which was posted in complainant's account by mistake that entry was also reversed. There is internal-department noting of 3.6.2015 (at page 29), which was being addressed as reverse entry in respect of excess balance, but no record of manually maintained ledger was produced by OP;
[vii]. by reading the aforementioned three letters (at pages 23, 27 and 28 referred above) together, they are contradictory and paradoxical to each other, as in the first two letters OP's stand is entry was just made in the pass-book and not else-where in its own record of ledgers but in third letter the OP is disclosing that wrong entry was also made in account/ledger of complainant, apart from reverse entry. It means that record was already being maintained and available with OP, then what prevented OP to make that entry in the pass-book since pass-book was produced on may occasions after 3.6.2015. In other words, why that reverse entry was not entered into the passbook and why it was with-held? However, that neither manually maintained ledger account of complainant was produced nor of other account holder/customer by OP and
[viii] in letter dated 01.12.2016 (page 33) by Sr. Superintendent of Post Office came with new proposition that a discrepancy was found during CBS migration and it was removed by deleting the entry, the case was closed. Thence, the complainant was written another letter dated 23.02.2017 (page 50) by Sr. Superintendent of Post Office that reversal entry referred in letters dated 9.5.2016 and 1.12.2016 are not reversal entries but a correction entry.
7.4.2: The OP filed record of new system/computerized in respect of account of Indu Arora, account of Narender Kumar and other internal record of Post Office of OP. The following aspects are cull out:-
[a]. The pay-in-slip filled is of 10.01.2015 for deposit of cheque no.575207 dt. 10.01.2015, dates mentioned are manuscript but rubber stamp bears date of 14.01.2015, which appears to be date of deposit of cheque and for clearance. The account number on pay-in-slip is written twice, one is under over-writing and other is mentioned in bracket as (2870590) and similarly account number is written twice over-leaf the cheque. However, clearance rubber stamp over of date is 14.01.2015 over-leaf cheque, with session detail of 14.01.2015. The cheque on its face bears stamp for clearance of 15.01.2015 by State Bank of India. There is no record by OP that cheque was actually received by post office on 10.01.2015.
[b]. The said cheque is an account payee cheque bearing no.575207 was not issued by an ordinary individual account holder but it is office cheque issued by Deputy Post Master drawn on it’s A/c-New Delhi GPO payment A/c 31832033767 in favour Ms Indu Arora (r/o I 74B Pocket 1 Dilshad Garden New Delhi-110095 ). [c] The ledger account of Indu Arora shows that amount was credited to her account on 16.1.2015.
From this record some hidden facts are emerging. The cheque was sent for clearance on 14.1.2015. There was no practice in the post office to make credit entry immediately on deposit of cheque by the account holder but only after clearance of cheque. The cheque was cleared after receipt in clearance on 15.1.2015. As per computerized ledger sheet of Ms. Indu Arora, the amount was credited in her account on 16.01.2015.
[c] It is never the case of OP that for single cheque no. 575207, two entries/posting were made - one in the account of complainant Narender Kumar (r/o of 21B 8 New Rohtak Road Karol Bagh New Delhi-110005) and another in the account of Ms. Indu Arora (r/o I 74B Pocket 1 Dilshad Garden New Delhi-110095 ). Rather the case of OP was that entry pertaining to cheque of another customer was made in the account of complainant, which was deleted or corrected during migration of data in June 2015. If it was so, then there could not be entry in the account of Ms. Indu Arora on 16.1.2015 pertaining to that cheque. Similarly, there was also no scope of entry as on 17.1.2015 in the computerized sheet/ledger of complainant, since OP's stand is that entry was just effected in his pass-book only and in no other record. Since it was just entry in the pass-book and not in the manually maintained ledger, then how detail of cheque and other calculations could be shown by way of migrated data to new system. The OP is suppressing material things as appearing from the circumstances.
[c] It is already mentioned that at the time of final hearing, the OP had also filed transaction sheet of 12.1.2015, which was intimation for Karol Bag Post Office. The first sheet in such record (amongst three pages) mentions date of 12.1.2015. However, even considering it as a component of argument of OP, it also shows many aspects.
This documents of first sheet shows 07 entries, out of them 06 entries are computerized and last/7th entry is written manually with further endorsement "revised by HO-(7)" In computerized entries 04 transactions are of withdrawal and 02 transaction are of deposits with other details. At the end of table, the total amount of 04 withdrawal transaction is mentioned and similarly total amount of 02 transactions of deposit is mentioned, which tally with the corresponding figures of withdrawal and deposits respectively of 04 and 02 transactions.
However, 7th item is written manually, it is of cheque no. 575207 of Rs.20,000/-, however, this amount of Rs,20,000/- is not included in total amount of deposits, which is total of just 04 aforementioned items. Moreover, when the cheque was scrolled on 14.1.2015 and had also moved from office of OP for clearance on 14.01.2015, then how it could be in the transaction list of 12.1.2015? Why date of transaction is not mentioned against this cheque like other o6 entries against which dates are specially stated? Why it was written manually/manuscript as 7th entry, if the transaction was in natural course of business, then it ought to have been computerized record with appropriate columns of deposits? There is also no initials or stamp of Post office to authenticate the addition, if any. The circumstances presented by OP are not natural in the natural course on its face?
7.5.1. After this analysis, to put it simply is OP was maintaining the book/ledger manually and that record was not filed in this case. However, the OP had contended that there was just wrong entry in the pass-book exclusively, which does not get support from its own record. Otherwise, if there was no such entry in the manually maintained, then how in the migrated system previous entries can be introduced? OP's stand is inconsistent and paradoxical.
7.5.2. In the migrated system of account of Indu Arora, there is credit entry of 16.1.2015 of Rs.20,000/- and it confirm complainant Narender Kumar's case that his transaction was of subsequent date of 17.01.2015. The entry in the pass-book made manually is of 17.01.2015.
7.5.3: The OP has filed record computerized sheet of ledger of complainant as well as of Indu Arora. The complaint has also proved on record the statement of account [of said Indu Arora and of complainant Narender Kumar] under Finacle Post Migration, which were also separately filed as attested copies by office of OP. By plain reading of statement of account of Indu Arora under Finacle-Post- Migration and other computer sheet of her account, there is clear transaction of 16.1.2015 in her credit, the entries are matching each other. The other record of intimation of transaction for Karol Bagh [filed by OP with brief synopsis] also reflects transaction of said cheque of Rs.20,000/- on 16.1.2015 in respect of account number of Indu Arora.
So far, Financle post migration account of statement of complainant Narender Kumar is concerned, it does not reflect any transaction of 16.01.2015 of cheque amount credit Rs.20.000/- but other computerized sheet of his account shows cheque transaction of Rs.20,000/- of same account number. If the statement of account was computer based generated record, then why its entries are not tallying with entries of Finacle Post migration. It shows there was intervention with the entries.
7.5.4. Th circumstances are leaning towards the complainant case that he had deposited the amount in his account on that day.
7.5.5 Neither the reply of OP nor its evidence describes the circumstances as to under what circumstances that mistake had happened in making wrong entry in the pass-book, if so, since on 16.1.2015, there was already credit entry of cheque in the account of Ms Indu Arora, then how scope was left for dealing clerk to make entry mistakenly.? Even name and designation of that dealing clerk was not disclosed either in record nor any fact whether in the inquiry conducted, he was joined in that inquiry.
7.5.6 The OP has produced copies of deposit slip, cheque, other internal-noting of its office but with-held manually [manuscript] maintained ledger accounts of the complainant and of other account holders.
Moreover, general instructions appended with pass-book and rule 4 of POSB (CBS) Manual being relied upon by the OP that there is no legal liability of OP in respect of information and entries shown in the pass-book, however, this rule could be invoked for ideal situation, when there was bona-fide omission or mistake and not for the situation when there are adverse circumstances, record, situation like deposits are accepted at the counter from depositor & entries are also made in the pass book but not in the ledger/account books. The situation and circumstance of this case are not falling within the exception of that general instructions & rule of the Manual.
7.5.7: The OP is blowing hot and cold together, to discard a single entry in pass-book under the garb of general instructions, rule 4 under the Manual and mistake of dealing clerk, without establishing its stand vis a vis other entries in the passbook are accepted correct. In addition, OP shields itself on the basis of entries in the account of Indu Arora based on Financle and other computer sheet, however, OP is deny in the case of complaint despite statement of complaint under Financle does not reflect any entry of 16.1.2015 for credit of cheque amount in his account, which is contrary to other computer sheet of account, showing credit entry of 17.1.2015 in the account of complainant.
7.6 : Thus, in view of aforementioned discussion and conclusions, it is held that the complainant has succeeded to establish his case against OP of deficiency in services to the complainant and of unfair trade practice. Had there been no deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, the complainant would not have been deprived of his deposited amount of Rs.20,000/-.
8.1 The complainant is held entitled for return of his amount of Rs.20,000/-. Since, the amount was pertaining to his saving bank account, he would have earned usual simple interest of 4%pa, during that period, thus simple interest @ 4%pa from date of complaint till realisation of amount is allowed in favour of complainant and against OP.
8.2: The complainant seeks damages of Rs.40,000/- for sufferings, inconvenience & harassment. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was savings of complainant, saving account are opened in the post office under the faith and trust as well to have better interest option than other banking financial institution, however, the trust of complainant was shattered, who had retired from SBI and was of 66 years of age at the time of filing the complainant. He ran post to pillar to protect his amount and for return of his money, he suffered inconvenience, harassment. mental agony, thus considering these circumstances and in order to meet both ends of just, the damages are quantified as Rs. 20,000/- in his favour and against the OP.
8.3: Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OP to return/pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- along-with simple interest of 4% p.a. from date of filing of complainant upto the date of this order, apart from damages of Rs.20,000/- & costs of Rs.5000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case, the amount is not paid within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order, then rate of interest will be 6% pa from that date till its realisation of amount.
9. Copy of this order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per Regulations.
10: Announced on this 7th day of March, 2023 [फागुन 16, साका 1944].
It is necessary to record that great difficulties are being faced for want of stenographer & PA in the regular functioning of this Commission as a single stenographer Gr-III is provided.
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [Inder Jeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
