West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/20/2012

Smt. Saraswati Piri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 20/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 06/07/2012                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxx

 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S.  K.  Dasmal.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S. Paria.

             Smt. Saraswati Piri W/o-Sri Rabindra Nath Piri of Vill-Panpara, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-

             Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Post Office, at Midnapore, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Senior Post Master (Gazetted) Midnapore Head Post Office,  Dist-Paschim Medinipur
3. The Post Master, Midnapore District School Board, Sub-Post Office, Dist-Paschim Medinipur …………………Ops.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:-

The complainant filed the case praying for an order directing the Ops to issue duplicate certificates in respect of twenty two (22) lost Kissan Vikas Patras (KVPS).

In a nut shell, the case of the complainant is that she purchased 14 (KVPS) each of Rs.10,000/- from the office of the Op No.3 in for the purpose of investment through  authorized agent Avijit Chakraborty ( No.E577 257) on 22/01/2007.  The detail numbers and date of purchase of the said 14 KVPS have been given in the petition of complaint.  The complainant also purchased other 8 numbers of KVPS of Rs.10,000/- each from the office of the Op No.3 details of which have been given in the petition of complaint.  Thus, there was total 22 numbers of KVPS of Rs.10,000/- each which were purchased by the complainant  from the Op No.3.  Thereafter, all the 22 KVPS have been lost from the custody of the complainant and despite through search, the complainant could not find out the same for which he informed the matter to the Op No.3 when she was advised  to inform the matter to the local P.S. and accordingly, the complainant lodged information with the

Contd…………..P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Kotowali P.S. being G.D. No.489 dated 09/12/2010 and G.D. no.753 dated 14/12/10. Thereafter, the complainant made application to the Op No.3 for issuance of duplicate certificates of KVPS in favour of the complainant vide letter No.D-7/226/10-11 dated 30/3/11 the Op No.2 asked the complainant to submit an application in form duly filled up along with a copy of the G.D entry.  The application format was supplied by the Op No.2.  Thereafter, the complainant fulfilled the requirement. Again the Op No.2 sent a letter bearing No.D7-224/10-11 dated 25/5/11 and D7-226/10-10 dated 25/5/11. The Op. No.2 asked the complainant to submit anon-indemnity bond of non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.50/- with one surety and his pay certificate which was also fulfilled by the complainant.  On receiving the same, the Op No.2 once again sent a letter bearing No.D7-224/10-11 dated 24/11/11 asking the complainant to give additional sureties covering the maturity value for Rs.4,80,000/- for 12 months, basic pay including of the sureties along with other terms and conditions for processing the matter further.  In that way, the Ops are sending letter one after another causing harassment to the complainant.  The complainant contended that deliberately and willfully the Ops. are causing harassment although their requirements have been fulfilled by the complainant and the Ops are bound to issue duplicate certificate in respect of the KVPS certificates.                       

Hence this case.

     The Ops contested the case by filing W/O.  In their W/O, the Ops have not denied the issuance of 22 KVPS each of Rs.10,000/-.  The submission of application in prescribed form by the complainant for issuance of duplicate certificates is also not denied.  The Op also issued that the total face value of all the KVPS were for Rs.2,20,000/- and the maturity value has Rs.4,40,000/- which have been reportedly lost from the custody of the complainant.  The Ops also admitted the filing of the indemnity bond by the complainant.  But the Op contended that the bond was submitted with one surety, namely, Sk. Rahul Amin whose basic pay was Rs.4,110/-.  The Ops specifically contended that as per illustration in authors note (iv) 1 of para 44 of P.O. small Savings Scheme Part three 2004-05 by A.N Dureja of Rule 44(6) of PO SB Mannual Volum–II basic pay for 12 months of the surety or sureties is required to be covered the maturity value of certificates against which duplicate certificates are sought.  Accordingly, the holder was requested by the Op No.2 vide letter No.D7-224/10-11 dated 24/11/11 to furnish additional sureties with their current  pay certificates so that 12 months basic pays of the sureties in altogether can cover the matured value of the certificates in question i.e. Rs.4,40,000/-.  The complainant has failed to fulfill requirement in as such their no negligence or deficiency on the part of the Ops .So, the Ops pay for dismissal of the case.

  Contd…………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

Now it is for our consideration as to the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Decisions with reasons

 It appears to be an admitted position  that the complainant purchases total twenty two (22)  numbers of KVPS each of Rs.10,000/-.  So, the total face value was Rs.2,20,000/- and the maturity value was Rs.4,40,000/-.  The case record shows that one after another, the complainant fulfilled the requirement of the Ops.  Firstly, the complainant filed application in prescribed form.  Thereafter, she supplied G.D. entry No. in respect of information of loss of the KVPS and thereafter the complainant furnished indemnity bond with one surety.  It clearly appears that the Ops did not ask for the requirement at a time.  One after another, they asked for the requirement which were fulfilled by the complainant.  Finally, the Op asked for additional surety in terms of Authors Note of para 44 of P.O. small Savings Bank scheme.  They also referred to Rule 44(6) of P.O. SB Mannual Vol-ii in support of their requirement.  The requirement is that basic pay for 12 months of the surety/sureties is required to cover the maturated value of certificate against which duplicate certificates are sough for.  Therefore, surety(s) having 12 months basic pay equivalent to Rs.4,40,000/- are required to be furnished by the complainant. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that such requirement is not at all possible for the complainant to fulfill for the reasons that the complainant is a village lady and it is not possible  for her to find out surety having 12 months annual basic pay aggregating Rs.4,40,000/-.  The said amount is not doubt, a very high amount and in village area it is seldom found that a person is having 12 months basic pay aggregating Rs.4,40,000/- p.a. The complainant has furnished one surety, the Government employee.  But that could not satisfy the Ops, even in case of more than one sureties, that will require a good number of sureties whose 12 months basic pay aggregates Rs.4,40,000/-.  Moreover, from in the aforesaid manual such Provision has not been stipulated. It is authors note only which is his clarification.  There cannot be any gainsaying i.e. Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation and its interpretation is to be made keeping in view the intention of the legislature. Accordingly, the case is not to be viewed in a very Pedantic or hyper technical manner. Harmonious Construction of the Provision is to be made.   If in present case, the complainant is unable to furnish the surety as asked for.  Should she to be denied of the duplicate certificate?  I think, the reply should be in the negative. Everything is admitted in the case.  What stands in the way of the Ops to grant certificate, according to them, is want of sufficient surety. We have already mentioned that the complainant is a village lady and it has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that it is not at all possible for her to furnish the surety as sought for.  Moreover, no rule of procedure supports the requirement or the Ops.   

Contd…………..P/4

- ( 4 ) -

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the case should succeed and the Ops should be directed to issue duplicate certificates of KVPS to the complainant

                                   Hence

                                                Ordered

                                                                that the case succeeds on contest, the Ops are hereby directed to issue duplicate certificates in respect of the following KVP numbers..

1. KVP-73CD 395345 Reg. no. 5129 dt. 22.01.07
2. KVP-73CD 395346 Reg. no. 5129 dt. 22.01.07
3. KVP-73CD  395347 Reg. no. 5129 dt. 22.01.07
4. KVP-73CD 395348  Reg. no. 5129  dt. 22.01.07
5. KVP-73CD 395349  Reg. no. 5129  dt. 22.01.07
6. KVP-73CD 395350  Reg. no. 5129  dt. 22.01.07
7. KVP-73CD 395351  Reg. no. 5129   dt. 22.01.07
8. KVP-73CD 395352  Reg. no.  5129  dt.22.01.07
9. KVP-73CD 395353  Reg. no.  5129  dt.22.01.07    
10. KVP-73CD 395354  Reg.  no. 5129  dt.22.01.07
11. KVP-73CD 395355  Reg.  no.  5129  dt.22.01.07
12. KVP-73CD 395356  Reg.  no.  5129  dt. 22.01.07
13. KVP-73CD 395357  Reg.  no.  5129  dt.22.01.07
14. KVP-73CD 395358  Reg.  no.  5129  dt.22.01.07 

                        19CE No.126735, 126736, 126737, 126738, 126739, 126740, 126741 and 126742 respectively, in favour of the complainant within one month from this date.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

(Mr. K. S. Samajder)        (Mrs. Debi Sengupta)                       (Mr. K. S. Samajder)      

         President                                Member                                             President

                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.