Punjab

Sangrur

CC/633/2016

Chiranjeev - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent, Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vinay Kumar Jindal

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 633                                                                                       

                                                                    Instituted on:  25.10.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    09.01.2017

 

Chiranjeev (minor) son of Surjit Singh aged 13 years through  his father as guardian Surjit Singh resident of #66, J.P. Nagar, Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

 

1.       The Superintendent, Head Post Office, Near District Court, Sangrur.

 

2.       Head Post Office through post master, Near District Court, Sangrur.

 

3.       Union of India, Telegraph and Post Department through its Secretary, New Delhi.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Vinay Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :    Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate                    

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Chiranjeev through his father as guardian Surjit Singh,  complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is having PPF account bearing number 0607584840 with OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that he approached the OPs to withdraw Rs.2,02,106/-  i.e. 50% balance of Rs.4,04,213/-  which is balance of April 2013 but the OPs allowed the complainant to withdraw Rs.1,38,000/- only which was withdrawn but the complainant requested the OPs so many times to make the remaining payment but he had received a letter dated 21.09.2016  from the OPs in which the OPs referred the rule no.9 of PPF Scheme 1968 and shows his inability to make the remaining balance amount and told that as per rule 9 of PPF scheme,  no more than one withdrawal is permissible during the current one year. In this way, the OPs harassed the complainant by his wrong act and conduct. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to release the payment of Rs.64,106/- as remaining amount along with interest @18% per annum from April 2016 till its realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony,

iii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service the OPs did not appear and as such the OPs were proceeded exparte on 06.12.2016.

3.             In his exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed evidence.

4.             Today i.e. on 09.01.2017 when  the case is at the stage of  pronouncement of the order, Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of the OPs and also made a statement tendering a cheque dated 07.01.2017  for Rs.45563/-  in favour of the complainant  which was payable to the complainant as 50% of the balance as on 31.03.2016 being 50% of the lower balance as on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2013 for payment to the complainant which  has been received by the complainant today but he opposed the OPs on the ground of compensation of account of deficiency in service, mental pain agony and litigation expenses due to wrong  act and conduct of the OPs by not making the payment of rightful balance amount of the complainant  in time as  he was in dire need of money for his personal use. We have perused the entire file and heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the file and statement made by the learned counsel for the OPs today we find that  it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as after filing of the present complaint and during the pendency of which OPs have tendered a cheque of balance amount which was payable to the complainant at the time of  request of the complainant for release of 50% amount from his PPF account under rule, for payment  to the complainant. Accordingly, we feel that complainant is entitled to compensation on account of deficiency in service, mental pain, harassment and litigation expenses.     

5.             In view of the facts stated above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5500/- on account of deficiency in service, mental pain agony and litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days as per abovementioned order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                 

                Announced

                January 9, 2017

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati)  ( Sarita Garg)               (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                       Member                   Member                         President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-