RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2465 of 2012

1- Union of India through the Post Master General,

     Department of Posts, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.

2- Post Master, City Post Office, Qutubkhana,

    District, Bareilly.                                             ...Appellants.

Versus

1. Uma Raman Chaudhari.
2. Indra Raman Chaudhari                     ….Respondents.

Appeal No.2466 of 2012

1- Union of India through the Post Master General,

     Department of Posts, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.

2- Post Master, City Post Office, Qutubkhana,

    District, Bareilly.                                             ...Appellants.

Versus

1- Uma Raman Chaudhari s/o Late Radha Raman

    Saxena, R/o 12, Kirti Nagar, P.S. Prem Nagar,

    District, Bareilly.                                        ….Respondent.

Appeal No.2467 of 2012

1- Union of India through the Post Master General,

     Department of Posts, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.

2- Post Master, City Post Office, Qutubkhana,

    District, Bareilly.                                             ...Appellants.

Versus

1- Swami Saran Chaudhari s/o Lata Radha Raman Saxena,

    R/o 12, Kirti Nagar, P.S. Prem Nagar, District, Bareilly. 

2- Kishori Raman Chaudhari s/o Late Radha Raman

    Saxena, R/o 12, Kirti Nagar, P.S. Prem Nagar,

    District, Bareilly.                                       ….Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

(2)

Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellants.

Sri A.K. Pandey for the respondents.

Date  9.7.2018

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

The above three appeals are similar in nature, therefore, they are decided together. The appeal no. 2465 of 2012 shall be the leading appeal.

Facts leading to the appeal no.2465 of 2012, in short, are that the respondents/complainants’ mother Smt. Krishna Devi had opened MIS account no.1306388 in the city post office, Bareilly for a sum of Rs.50,000.00 deposited by her on 28.1.2003. She had made the complainants as nominees in the aforesaid account. After the death of Smt. Krishna Devi, the complainants requested the OPs to make payment to them but despite the matter being raised in the Dak Adaalat, the complainants were not paid the amount of the account, on the ground that the nominations have been entered in the relevant documents after the death of the depositor hence, the payment could be made only upon the production of succession certificate. Smt. Krishna Devi had submitted the form for the aforesaid deposit on 28.1.2003 and the names of the nominees were duly entered at that time and it was duty of the OPs to make necessary entries in their records and if they failed to do so then the complainants were not responsible for their lapses. Hence, the demand for obtaining succession certificate despite clear nomination of the complainants, was absolutely wrong and the payment could not be denied to the nominees. The complainants, thereafter, filed a complaint before the Forum below wherein the OPs filed their WS

(3)

mentioning therein that the OPs never refused for payment of the amount of the said MIS account to the rightful person in accordance with law. The complainants are avoiding to produce the succession certificate, therefore, this complaint was barred by provisions of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.  The complaint was not maintainable. Thereafter, the ld. Forum passed the impugned order on 27.3.2012 as under:-

"परिवादीगण का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व अंशत: स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह एमआईएस खाता सं01306388 में जमा 50,000/- रू0 की जमा धनराशि तथा उस पर देय ब्‍याज सहित पूर्व में अदा की गई धनराशि को समायोजित करते हुए निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादीगण को भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर ब्‍याज सहित संपूर्ण धनराशि की अदायगी न करने पर विपक्षीगण को उक्‍त देय संपूर्ण धनराशि पर 10 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज अदा करना होगा।

विपक्षीगण को यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह वह परिवादीगण को 5,000/- रू0 बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति व 2,000/- रू0 वाद व्‍यय के रूप में  निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। आदेश का अनुापालन आदेश की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर करें।''

Facts leading to the appeal no.2466 of 2012, in short, are that the respondent/complainant’s mother Smt. Krishna Devi had opened MIS account no.1305816 in the city post office, Bareilly for a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 deposited by her on 6.9.2002. She had made the complainant as nominee in the aforesaid account. After the death of Smt. Krishna Devi, the complainant requested the OPs to make payment to him but despite the matter being raised in the Dak Adaalat, the

(4)

complainant was not paid the amount of the account on the ground that the nomination has been entered in the relevant documents after the death of the depositor hence, the payment could be made only upon the production of succession certificate. Smt. Krishna Devi had submitted the form for the aforesaid deposit on 6.9.2002 and the name of the nominee was duly entered at that time and it was duty of the OPs to make necessary entries in their records and if they failed to do so then the complainant was not held responsible for their lapses. Hence, the demand for obtaining succession certificate despite clear nomination of the complainant was absolutely wrong and the payment could not be denied to the nominee. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint before the Forum below wherein the OPs filed their WS mentioning therein that the OPs never refused for payment of the amount of the said MIS account to the rightful person in accordance with law. The complainant is avoiding to produce the succession certificate, therefore, this complaint was barred by provisions of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.  The complaint was not maintainable. Thereafter, the ld. Forum passed the impugned order on 27.3.2012 as under:-

"परिवादीगण का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व अंशत: स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह एमआईएस खाता सं01305816 में जमा 1,00,000/- रू0 की जमा धनराशि तथा उस पर देय ब्‍याज सहित पूर्व में अदा की गई धनराशि को समायोजित करते हुए निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादी को भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर ब्‍याज सहित संपूर्ण धनराशि की अदायगी न करने पर विपक्षीगण को उक्‍त देय संपूर्ण धनराशि पर 10 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज अदा करना होगा।

(5)

विपक्षीगण को यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह वह परिवादीगण को 10,000/- रू0 बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति व 2,000/- रू0 वाद व्‍यय के रूप में  निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। आदेश का अनुापालन आदेश की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर करें।''

Facts leading to the appeal no.2467 of 2012, in short, are that the respondents/complainants’ mother Smt. Krishna Devi had opened MIS account no.1306389 in the city post office, Bareilly for a sum of Rs.50,000.00 deposited by her on 28.1.2003. She had made the complainants as nominees in the aforesaid account. After the death of Smt. Krishna Devi, the complainants requested the OPs to make payment to them but despite the matter being raised in the Dak Adaalat, the complainants were not paid the amount of the account on the ground that the nominations have been entered in the relevant documents after the death of the depositor hence, the payment could be made only upon the production of succession certificate. Smt. Krishna Devi had submitted the form for the aforesaid deposit on 28.1.2003 and the names of the nominees were duly entered at that time and it was duty of the OPs to make necessary entries in their records and if they failed to do so then the complainants were not held responsible for their lapses. Hence, the demand for obtaining succession certificate despite clear nomination of the complainants were absolutely wrong and the payment could not be denied to the nominees. The complainants, thereafter, filed a complaint before the Forum below wherein the OPs filed their WS mentioning therein that the OPs never refused for payment of the amount of the said MIS account to the

(6)

rightful person in accordance with law. The complainants are avoiding to produce the succession certificate, therefore, this complaint was barred by provisions of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.  The complaint was not maintainable. Thereafter, the ld. Forum passed the impugned order on 27.3.2012 as under:-

"परिवादीगण का परिवाद विपक्षीगण के विरूद्व अंशत: स्‍वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षीगण को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह एमआईएस खाता सं01306389 में जमा 50,000/- रू0 की जमा धनराशि तथा उस पर देय ब्‍याज सहित पूर्व में अदा की गई धनराशि को समायोजित करते हुए निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादीगण को भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित करें। निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर ब्‍याज सहित संपूर्ण धनराशि की अदायगी न करने पर विपक्षीगण को उक्‍त देय संपूर्ण धनराशि पर 10 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज अदा करना होगा।

विपक्षीगण को यह भी आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह वह परिवादीगण को 5,000/- रू0 बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति व 2,000/- रू0 वाद व्‍यय के रूप में  निर्णय की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। आदेश का अनुापालन आदेश की तिथि से एक माह के अन्‍दर करें।''

Feeling aggrieved with the above impugned orders, the appellants have filed the above appeals mainly on the grounds that the OPs did not commit any deficiency in service as they were ready to make payment of the amount but the complainants did not provide the succession certificates but the ld. Forum has passed the impugned orders without considering the facts and evidence available on record which are liable to be set aside and the appeals allowed.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

(7)

          In this case, it is not disputed that Smt. Krishna Devi had opened the MIS accounts, the details of which are given in the complaints. The disputed point according to the appellants/ OPs is that the complainants did not produce the succession certificates and therefore, the appellants/OPs did not commit any deficiency in service in not making the payment of the MIS accounts of Smt. Krishna Devi to them.

          So, now it is to be seen as to whether the appellants/ OPs committed deficiency in service in not making payment of the MIS accounts of Smt. Krishna Devi to the complainants. If so, its effect.

          It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellants that names of the complainants were not registered as nominees as the formalities were not completed and it is only after the death of the account holder that the requirements were fulfilled and as the nominations have been irregularly done therefore, the complainants were required to produce the succession certificates from the competent court of law for payment of the said MIS accounts but the complainants did not produce the required succession certificates therefore, the payment of the MIS accounts in question could not be made to the complainants. On the contrary, It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the respondents/complainants that the names of the complainants were recorded as nominees in the form for opening of the accounts and if at all the nomination procedure was not completed by the appellants/OPs then it was their fault and the complainants could not be penalized for the same. It  transpires that the formalities for nominations of the complainants were completed after the death of the MIS

(8)

accounts holder Smt. Krishna Devi. It has not been doubted anywhere that the complainants were not the sons of the deceased MIS accounts holder Smt. Krishna Devi and it has been found in an enquiry that Smt. Rani Upadhyay, the agent had stated that the names of the nominees were entered in the account opening form of Smt. Krishna Devi. It transpires that it is at their end that the appellants/OPs could not complete the formalities of the nominations of the complainants. It is astonishing as to how when the account holder had died then the appellants/OPs made entries of nominations in the relevant columns of the accounts. So even if any irregularity has been committed at the end of the appellants/OPs only, so how they can now take refuge in the garb of that irregularity to deny the payments as the fact remains that the complainants were made nominees by the account holder though the formalities were completed by the appellants/OPs subsequently. There is not an iota of doubt that the complainants, being sons of the deceased were not only entitled to the amount but were made nominees in the different accounts by the deceased account holder and therefore, it was not proper on the part of the appellants/OPs to demand succession certificates and keep pending the matter of payment of the accounts in question to the nominees i.e. the complainants. Therefore, the appellants/OPs did commit deficiency in service in refusing the payment to the nominees i.e. the complainants and therefore, the ld. Forum has rightly passed the impugned orders. However, we find that it was not proper to award compensation when interest at the rate of 10% was already allowed therefore, the impugned

(9)

orders deserves to be amended to that extent while sustaining the rest part of the order.  

ORDER

          The appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order passed in the appeal no.2465 of 2012 is amended to the extent that compensation of Rs.5,000.00 is set aside while the rest of the order shall remain as it is. The impugned order passed in the appeal no.2466 of 2012 is amended to the extent that compensation of Rs.10,000.00 is set aside while the rest of the order shall remain as it is. The impugned order passed in the appeal no.2467 of 2012 is amended to the extent that compensation of Rs.5,000.00 is set aside while the rest of the order shall remain as it is.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the records of the Appeals no.2466 of 2012 and 2467 of 2012. 

         (Vijai Varma)                          (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.3