DATE OF FILING                    :     04-12-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      07-02-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     26-05-2014.

1.      Saikat  Sit,

son of Samarendra Nath Sit,

2.      Samarendra Nath  Sit,

son of late Pannalal Sit,

3.      Esa Sit,

wife of Samarendra Nath Sit,

residing at Village & P.O. Bargachia,  

P.S. Jagatballavpur, District –Howrah,

PIN – 7111 404.-------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Manager,

United Bank of India,

Domjur Branch, Howrah Amta  Road,

P.O. Domjur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 405. 

2.         The  Post Master,

            Bargachia Sub-Post Office, P.O. Bargachia,

            P.S. Jagatbnallavpur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 404. 

3.         The Senior Post Master,

Howrah Head Post Office,

P.O. & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.

4.         The Sr. Supdt. of Post Office,

Howrah Division, P.O. Kadamtala,

District – Howrah,

PIN - 711181.

5.         The  Chairman,

United  Bank of India,

The head office at 16, Hemanta Basu Sarani,

Kolkata – 700 001.

6.         The Post Master General,

            Eastern Circle Yogayog Bhawan, Bow Bazar,

12, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata 700 012.

7.         The Union of India,

             represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of

             Post and Telecommunication, Sanchar  Bhawan,

             20, Ashok Road,

             New Delhi – 110001.-------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               Complainants, Mr.  Samarendra Sit, Esa  Sit and Saikat Sit, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) have prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to release the maturity value of Two NSCS along with statutory interest, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2.               Brief facts of the case is that complainant nos. 2 & 3 pledged their  NSCS with the o.p. no. 1 against the cash / credit loan account having no. 5859 held with o.p. no. 1 by the complainant no. 1. And the said loan account is still a continuing one. Complainant nos. 2 & 3 purchased two NSCS of Rs. 10,000/- each having no. 6NS / 42EE492453 & 6NS/42EE492454 dated 27-03-2003 from o.p. no. 2. And for the benefit of complainant no. 1, being the son of complainants nos. 2 & 3, complainant nos. 2 & 3 kept those NSCS with o.p. no. 1 as security against the above said cash / credit account. But even after maturity of those NSCS on 27-03-2009, no maturity value was  released by o.p. no. 2 which was supposed to be encashed by o.p. no. 1 as the custodian of those NSCS. On query, they came to know that all though o.p. no. 1 sent the original NSCS with a forwarding letter to o.p. no. 2 on schedule date vide their letter dated 29-05-2009 through registered post vide RL No. 5388 dated 29-05-2009,  o.p. no. 2 replied to o.p. no. 1 vide their reply dated 02-09-2009 that o.p. no. 2 got only the forwarding letter but no original certificate. And again after receiving a same request  letter of releasing the maturity value of NSCS from o.p. no. 1 on 28-10-2009, o.p. no. 2 replied on 18-01-2010 that only after receiving the original certificates they could release the amount. And as o.p. no. 2 did not receive the original certificates, o.p. no. 2 had returned the cheque, so issued by their higher  authority, as ‘unclaimed’.  Thereafter, the letters are being sent by both o.ps. but complainants are not getting the matured amount which was supposed  to be adjusted against the cash / credit loan account of complainant no. 1. Thereby, complainants are being penalized for no fault of them. The loan account is still continuing. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainants have filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service against o.ps., before this Forum on 04-12-2013 praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

3.               Notices were served. They  appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.    Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written versions filed by both o.ps. separately and noted their contents. O.p. no. 2, vide para 12 of their written version has categorically stated that as they did not receive the original certificates, they could not release the maturity value. And even they have requested o.p. no. 1 to contact the concerned authority to get duplicate certificates after observing departmental rules vide their letter dated 12-11-2013 sent through RL No. A. RW 189880271N dated 14-11-2013, but o.p. no. 1 never turned up to collect the duplicate certificates. But o.p. no. 2 has not annexed the copy of their such letter, claimed to be sent to o.p. no. 1. But o.p. no. 1 in their written version has categorically mentioned the dates of all occasions when they sent the originals on 29-05-2009, 28-10-2009 ( from o.p.’2 letter date 18-01-2010 ), 28-05-2013 vide annexure letter dated 28-05-2013.  And on 09-09-2013, o.p. no. 1 also made a  G.D. with Domjur P.S. which was also communicated by o.p. no. 1 vide their letter dated 10-09-2013 to o.p. no. 2. All the letters are annexed by complainant as well as o.p. no. 1 which shows that o.p. no. 1 complied with all necessary formalities to get the maturity amount. And here we are to keep in mind that from 27-03-2009, the amount became due to be paid by o.p. no. 2 and complainants were to move from pillar to post to get their legitimate amount. It is nothing but gross negligence on the part of o.ps. specially o.p. no. 2. If a Government Authority plays such a negligent role, where people would go for redressal.  The common people have got immense faith on Government activities and they always believe that Government would do the best for them for their real benefit. Here in this case, for severe negligence on the part of o.p. no. 2, complainant had been suffering since 2009 for which o.p. no. 2 has no explanation which could have saved their negligence. Accordingly, case succeeds on contest. 

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 421 of 2013 ( HDF 421 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.P. no. 2 is directed to issue duplicate NSCS against certificates having Nos. 6 NS/ 42EE492453 &  6NS/42EE492454 within 15 days from this order and send it to o.p. no. 1. And o.p. no. 1 is directed to take necessary steps immediately for depositing the same to o.p. no. 2 within one week after receipt of the duplicate certificates from o.p. no. 2.

       That the o.p. no. 2 is directed to release the maturity amount within one month from this order.

      That the o.p. no. 2 is further  directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainants for causing mental agony and harassment and  Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.  

      This amount of Rs. 12,000/- is to be paid by o.p. no. 2 within one month from this order, i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.          

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.