BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 276 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15-04-2015

Date of Decision: 03-09-2015  

Mr.Om Parkash Preenja (aged 67 years) son of Sh.Khushi Ram, RO 60, Nehru Colony, Amritsar.  

Complainant

Versus

1. Union of India, through Senior Superintendent of Posts, GPO, Opposite Rialto Cinema, Amritsar.
2. The Post Master, GPO, Rialto Chowk, Amritsar. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Vishal Bhardwaj, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Om Parkash Preenja under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he is having Two saving bank accounts jointly held  with his sons with the Opposite Parties  having account No. 0997797039 and account No.0997594502 with Opposite Party No.2. Complainant alleges that he was in dire need of the amount and went to Opposite Party No.2 on 4.4.2015 to withdraw the total amount from his accounts to which he is legally entitled, but the officials of the Opposite Parties did not allow the complainant to operate his account on the plea that their computer system was not showing the accounts of the complainant and told to come later. The complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2  on 6.4.2015 for the same purpose, but was again not entertain and was told to come later, and the complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 13.4.2015 and this time also, he was told that the computer system of the Opposite Parties are not reflecting the accounts of the complainant. Complainant further alleges that he is senior citizen and he made the protest to the higher officials of the Opposite Party No.2 in the said matter, but they instead of  resolving the grievance of the complainant used harsh language for the complainant and told him to go wherever he can and complaint against them as they don’t bother and have a scant regard for the law. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties  in not allowing to withdraw/ operate the accounts of the  complainant and thereafter using the harsh and unparliamentary language is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mal-practice and is not sustainable in the eyes of laws.        Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties  to allow the complainant to operate and withdraw the amount from the aforesaid accounts of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that it is correct that the complainant is depositor of saving bank accounts as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. Since, no fee is charged by the Opposite Parties  from the complainant, hence the complainant is not considered as consumer. Further, the complainant attended Amritsar HPO on 4.4.2015 for foreclosure of his aforesaid accounts, but due to some technical  defect in the Central Server system which was beyond the power of the Counter PA, Supervisory Staff and System Manager concerned. Since the account number of the complainant was not being displayed in the system and the complainant was requested to cooperate with the Opposite Parties  till the computer system becomes in order. Again on 6.4.2015 the complainant visited Amritsar HO on 6.4.2015 for the foreclosure of his aforesaid saving bank accounts, but till then the e-mail instructions from Shri Sachin Kishore Director (CBS), sansad Marg, Dak Bhawan were received through e-mail on 6.4.2015 at 9.41 AM. The complainant was again  requested to wait till the instructions from Department are received and to cooperate with the Opposite Parties. As regard attending of Amritsar HO  by the complainant  on 13.4.2015, is denied for want of knowledge as the complainant did not approach the counter PA or the Supervisor concerned. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jarnail Singh Bhullar, Senior Superindent Posts Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant has   having Two saving bank accounts bearing No. 0997797039 and account No.0997594502 with the Post Office Opposite Party No.2, pass books of which are Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. Said accounts are jointly held  by the complainant with his sons. Complainant was in need of money and approached Opposite Party No.2 on 4.4.2015 to withdraw the total amount from his aforesaid accounts, but the Opposite Parties did not allow the complainant to operate his account on the plea that their computer system is not working properly and not showing the accounts of the complainant and the complainant was  told to come later. Then complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2  on 6.4.2015 for the same purpose, but  again  Opposite Party No.2 did not allow  to operate his aforesaid accounts for the same reason as stated above and the complainant was again told to come later on. Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 13.4.2015, but again there was same position and the complainant was not allowed to operate the aforesaid accounts. Complainant alleges that he is senior citizen and required money for his oldage treatment and he made protest to the higher officials of the Opposite Party No.2 , but in vain and the complainant was not allowed to operate his aforesaid accounts to withdraw the money. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties is that the complainant is depositor of aforesaid two saving bank accounts with the Opposite Party No.2. The complainant approached  Opposite Party No.2  on 4.4.2015 for foreclosure of his aforesaid saving bank accounts and refund of the entire amount, but due to some technical defect in the Central Server system which was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties i.e. Counter PA, Supervisory Staff and System Manager concerned. The account number of the complainant was not being displayed in the system, the complainant was  told to come later or by that time, the computer system of Opposite Party No.2 became  in order. Again on 6.4.2015 the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 for the aforesaid purposes i.e. for the foreclosure of his aforesaid saving bank accounts, but till then the e-mail instructions from Shri Sachin Kishore Director (CBS), sansad Marg, Dak Bhawan were received through e-mail on 6.4.2015. The complainant was again  requested to wait till the instructions from Department are received. However, the Opposite Party No.2 denied  that the complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 on 13.4.2015 for want of knowledge. Said situation was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties due to  technical fault in the technical server and the complainant did not cooperate with the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant did not turn up after resumption of the computer system/ online system, on 16.4.2015. As such, Opposite Party No.2 would allow the complainant to operate the aforesaid accounts after 16.4.2015, but thereafter the complainant did not approach Opposite Party No.2 and filed the present complaint. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that the complainant has wrongly dragged the Opposite Parties  in the present litigation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the complainant has Two saving accounts bearing No. 0997797039 and account No.0997594502 with the Post Office i.e. Party No.2, pass books of which are Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. Said accounts are jointly held  by the complainant with his sons. Complainant being senior citizen was in dire need of money, so approached Opposite Party No.2 on 4.4.2015 to withdraw the entire amount from his aforesaid accounts, but the Opposite Parties did not allow the complainant to operate his accounts on the plea that their computer system is not working properly and he was   told to come later on. Then complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2  on 6.4.2015 for the same purpose, but  again  Opposite Party No.2 did not allow  the complainant  to operate his aforesaid accounts on account of  same reason as stated above and the complainant was again told to come later on. Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 13.4.2015, but again there was same position and the complainant was not allowed to operate the aforesaid accounts. Complainant being senior citizen required his hard earned  money and he made protest to the higher officials of the Opposite Parties, but in vain. Opposite Parties  have admitted in their written version that complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 4.4.2015 and then on 6.4.2015, for the withdrawal of his  earnest money lying in the aforesaid accounts, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not allow the complainant to do so as the computer system of the Opposite Party No.2 was not working properly. Opposite Party No.2 has also admitted that their computer system resumed its proper working condition on 16.4.2015. All this shows that the Opposite Parties  did not allow the complainant to operate his aforesaid saving accounts to withdraw the amounts lying in those accounts only, due to the reason that their computer system was not working properly. If the computer system of the Opposite Parties  was not working properly, they should have made alternative arrangement because senior  citizen required his hard earned money lying deposited in his aforesaid saving bank accounts with the Opposite Parties, for his oldage day-to-day affairs, but the Opposite Parties  did not made any alternative arrangement, rather the Opposite Parties denied the complainant from his right to use his own hard earnest money for such a long period. As such, we hold that the Opposite Parties  were in deficiency of service qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly, we allow the complainant with costs and the Opposite Parties  are directed to allow the complainant to operate and withdraw the amount from his aforesaid saving bank accounts  bearing No. 0997797039 and account No.0997594502 with the Post Office i.e. Party No.2. The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant. The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 03-09-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member