Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1594/2015

Anita Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Goyal

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1594

                                                Instituted on:    07.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       26.08.2016

 

Anita Rani @ Champa Rani D/o Shri Jagan Nath now wife of Krishan Kumar R/O Street No.4, Akalgarh Basti, Sekha Road, Barnala.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     Union of India through Superintendent Post Office, Division Sangrur, 1^st Floor, Head Post Office, Sangrur.

2.     Post Master, Sub Post Office Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   K.C.Sharma, Presiding Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Smt. Anita Rani @ Champa Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops by purchasing the Kissan Vikas Patra of Rs.50,000/- (i.e.5 KVPs of Rs.10,000/- each having serial number 67CD 136643-47) which were purchased in her name by her maternal grandfather Shri Jagdish Rai on 26.12.2006 from the OP number 2 and the expiry of the same was 26.7.2015 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was payable to her.  Further case of the complainant is that the name of the complainant was Champa Rani, however after marriage, her in laws changed her name from Champa Rani to Anita Rani and all the identity proof of the complainant were got prepared in the name of Anita Rani.  Further case of the complainant is that after expiry of the term of KVPs, the complainant visited the Office of OP number 2 to make the maturity payment of the said KVPs, but the OP number 2 told the complainant to submit any ID proof in the name of Champa Rani, but the complainant apprised him that her name has been changed from Champa Rani to Anita Rani.  It is further submitted that the complainant obtained certificate dated 7.9.2015 from the Government Primary School, Badbar to the effect that Champa Rani D/o Jagan Nath passed 5^th class on 6.4.1987 and thereafter the complainant also obtained certificate dated 8.9.2015 from Government Senior Secondary School, Badbar.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant got prepared the application as told by OP number 2 and got attested the same, but of no avail.  Thereafter the complainant also got published news regarding change of name in Times of India and Rojana Spokesman on 10.10.2015 and submitted the newspaper to OP number 2, but the OP number 2 did not pay the amount. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay her the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. 26.7.2015 till realisation and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is stated that Anita Rani complainant is not the consumer of the OPs. The Kissan Vikas Patra in question were purchased from OP number 2 in the name of Champa Rani wife of Krishan Kumar son of Dev Raj, resident of Patti Sunami, Longowal and the purchase application was signed by Smt. Champa Rani herself. It is stated that the Ops are not concerned if the name of Champa Rani has been changed by her in laws to Anita Rani. It is further stated that had the in laws of Champa Rani changed the name to Anita  Rani, after her marriage, she should have purchased the KVPs in the name of Anita Rani wife of Krishan Kumar and not in the name of Champa Rani. It is stated further that the OPs legally cannot make the payment to any other person except to the person who is the payee of KVPs in question. Moreover, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be paid without getting the copy of PAN card, address proof and identity proof of the payee as per the rules.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of KVPs, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 copies of certificates, Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 copies of cuttings of newspapers, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11 copies of letters, Ex.C-12 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-13 copy of letter given by Sarpanch dated 26.5.2016, Ex.C-14 affidavit of Anita Rani @ Champa Rani and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 copy of application form, Ex.OP-2 affidavit and Ex.OP-3 copy of instructions of Post office and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits allowed, for these reasons.

 

5.             The facts in the present complaint are that the maternal grandfather of the complainant had obtained the Kissan Vikas Patras of Rs.50,000/- in the name of the complainant. As the complainant in her parents house was known as Champa Rnai, so, the Kisan Vikas Patras were obtained in the name of Champa Rani wife of Krishan Kumar, but after marriage, the name of the complainant was changed from Champa Rani to Anita Rani. So, all her identity proofs have been changed in the name of Anita Rani wife of Krishan Kumar. Now, the OPs are insisting that she should submit the identity proof in the name of Champa Rani, if she wants to receive the payments of the Kissan Vikas Patras.

 

6.             The complainant in order to show her identity has produced the certificate from the school, which is Ex.C-7 on record and we find that Champa Rani D/O Jagan Nath has been mentioned in this certificate, whereas the complainant has also submitted in the complaint that the name of her father is Jagan Nath. Further the complainant has placed on record two newspaper cuttings Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 in support of her version that she had changed her name from Champa Rani to Anita Rani. The complainant had also submitted one application to the OPs which is Ex.C-11, in which she had narrated the story of her change of name and has also signed as Champa Rani and Anita Rani, both.

 

7.             But, we find that the Ops insist that she should submit her identity proof in the name of Champa Rani if she wants to encash her Kissan Vikas Patras.

 

8.             Now, the question arises as to whether a person can have two identity proofs and if the complainant applies for the PAN number in the name of Champa Rani, then she may attract penalties for having two identities as she had already published in the news papers that she had changed her name from Champa Rani to Anita Rani.

 

9.             From the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant has submitted sufficient proof that she is Champa Rani who had changed her name to Anita Rani and Champa Rani and Anita Rani are not two different persons.

 

10.           The version of the Ops is that the complainant should submit her identity proof in the name of Champa Rani is not tenable as the complainant had changed her name to Anita Rani and all the proof avails now will be in the name of Anita Rani. From the facts mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs in order to make the payment are insisting the complainant to do illegal activity instead of establishing her identity from the documents placed on record. In all financial institutions the payment is made after verifying the signatures and if signatures differ then surety is being obtained just to safeguard the funds involved.  But, from the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the Ops had made no effort to make the payment and hence the Ops are deficient in service in rendering service to the complainant.

 

11.           In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on obtaining the surety and indemnity from the complainant along with interest & 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation.   We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- being the amount of mental agony, harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

12.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 26, 2016.

                                                       

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                            Presiding  Member

 

                                             

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member