DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 61  of  2021

 

Sri Nitai Debnath,

Late Manindra Chandra Debnath,

Kalikapur, Basudev Ashram, 

P.O. Border Rampur,

P.S. West Agartala, 

District-West Tripura- 799002. …..........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Superintendent,

(Department of Indian Post),

O/O- The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Agartala Postal Division,

Post Office Chowmuhani,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799001.

 

2. The Sub-Post Master,

(Department of Indian Post),

Arundhutinagar Sub Post Office,

P.O. Arundhutinagar, P.S. Arundhutinagar,

District- West Tripura-799003.  ............Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant  : Sri Kanulal Das,

  Sri Sukhen Banik,

  Smt. Manisha Majumder,

  Learned Advocates. 

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Biswanath Majumder,

  Learned Central Govt.   Counsel(C.G.C),

  Govt. of India.

 

 

 

ORDER   DELIVERED  ON:  28/02/2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

This complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection, Act, 2019 has been filed by Sri Nitai Debnath against the Superintendent of Postal Department, Agartala Postal Division as O.P. No.1 and the Sub-Post Master, Arundhutinagar Sub-Post Office as O.P. No.2. 

 

2. Fact of the complaint is that on 16.01.2001 the complainant opened one RD for Rs.3,000/- per month with the O.P. No.2 for 5 years through the postal agent appointed by the O.P. No.2. 

 

3. The complainant deposited Rs.33,000/- in total for 11 months with effect from January, 2001. The RD Account bearing No- 61697 was supposed to be matured  on 01.07.2006 but the complainant could not continue such payment. On 03.08.2019 the complainant prayed before the O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2 for getting refund of his principal amount of Rs.33,000/- with admissible interest. The duplicate pass book was  issued by the O.P. No.2 was also annexed with the prayer. Getting no response the complainant repeatedly approached the O.Ps but no good. However, on 17.08.2020 O.P. No.1 refused to make such payment on the ground of non availability of record and that claim being preferred after 13 years. Hence, this complaint was filed on 18.08.2021. 

 

4. Vide order dated 14.03.2022 the case was ordered to proceed exparte against the O.Ps for their non filing of written statement. Record shows that Learned Counsel of the O.P. informed this Commission that a Revision Petition was filed before the Hon'ble State Commission against the exparte order dated 14.03.2022. Hon'ble State Commission in case no- R.P. 1 of 2022 vide order dated 13.12.2022 was pleased to dismiss the Revision Petition. 

The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit.

 

5. During the course of argument Learned Counsel of the complainant argued that the O.Ps No.2 issued duplicate pass book which is lying in the record and letter of the complainant dated 11.08.2006 addressed to the O.P. No.1 has also been submitted. 

 

6. In the written argument, the O.Ps denied deficiency of service on the ground that as per the compendium of preservation of disposal of records the period of preservation was over as such the O.P. could not verify the availability of such RD Account as the preservation period is over. 

 

 

7. The following points are formulated for discussion and decision:-

(i) Whether the claim of the O.Ps that preservation period is over is acceptable for which the complainant can be deprived of his claim?

(ii) Whether this stand of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service for which the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

 

Discussion and reasons for decision:-

8. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

The letter dated 11.08.2006 of the complainant was not replied by the O.P. The stand of the O.Ps that the claim is barred by limitation is also not tenable as until final decision is/ was communicated by the O.Ps, the cause of action of the complaint was very much alive. Therefore, since the O.Ps by their reply dated 17.08.2020 informed that although duplicate pass book was issued on 01.07.2006 but the maturity amount was claimed after 13 years. The limitation period started from 17.08.2020 as the O.Ps informed the complainant their decision of non payment. As such, the complaint is very much within the period of limitation.

9. Vide letter dated 17.08.2020 i.e., Annexure -V, the O.P. No.1 informed the complainant as follows:-

“Apropos to the subject, it is to intimate that after receiving your application regarding closure of RD account no-61697, a detailed enquiry has been conducted by this Office. During enquiry it is revealed that the said duplicate passbook was issued on 01.07.2006 whereas the account matured on 06.01.2006. It is also observed that maturity amount has been claimed after thirteen years of maturity.

Hence, it is regret to inform that it is not possible to make payment due to non availability of records.”

10. Thus, it is clear that the only ground for non payment was non-availability of records. We give our anxious finding that digitization in the offices particularly Banking Sectors and other Financial Institutions like the O.Ps started in the late 90s. The duplicate pass book was issued to the complainant on 01.07.2006 and by this time the total digitization/computerization of the branch of the O.P. No.2 was either completed or should have been completed. As such the O.P. No.2 can not take the stand of old Rule 115(2) of POSB Manual Volume- 1 or any other Rules for disposal of records and on that ground can not refuse to pay the hard earned money of an ordinary citizen like the complainant.

11. The entire episode that is from the letters issued by the complainant addressing the O.Ps and huge delay in replying such letter and also failure of the O.Ps to submit written objection and evidence in this proceeding indicated to the only hypothesis that the O.Ps are not serious in their business. As such guilty of deficiency in service. 

Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In the result, it is decided that the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to return Rs.33,000/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand) only to the complainant which he deposited with admissible interest as per rules. This amount has to be returned within 2(two) months from today, failing which the O.Ps have to pay additional compensation of Rs.100/- per day from today till the date of actual payment.    

  The case stands disposed off. 

Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.