The Post Master General, and Others Vs. Bijay Kr. Prasad and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1107107
CourtWest Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided OnNov-04-2013
Case NumberS.C. Case No FA/73 of 2013 (Arisen out of Order dated 10/03/2011 in Case No. 283 of 2010 of District North 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas DF, Barasat)
JudgeDEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JAGANATTH BAG, MEMBER
AppellantThe Post Master General, and Others
RespondentBijay Kr. Prasad and Another
Excerpt:
debasis bhattacharya, member being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/order dated 26.11.2012 in case no. cc/15/2011, passed by the ld. district forum, hooghly, the ops thereof have preferred this appeal. by the impugned judgment/order, the ld. district forum has allowed the case on contest, in part, with cost of rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand) and directed the ops to pay the maturity amount of the m.i.s. after deducting the double drawing interest instalments, if any and also directed them to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the maturity amount to be paid to the petitioners for the period from the date of the maturity till the date of payment within one month from the date of the order and further directed them to pay rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) to the petitioners towards compensation for their mental agony and harassment and directed that such payment of rs.10,000/- + rs.2,000/- = rs.12,000/- (rupees twelve thousand) to be paid to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order, i.d., 9% interest will carry till full realization. the case of the complainants, in their petition of complaint, is that they availed the service of savings by depositing an amount of rs.1,02,000/- (rupees one lakh two thousand) in the monthly income scheme (mis), vide a/c no. 65038404 with the op no.2. due to loss of the pass book of the said mis, complainant no.1 lodged g.d.e. no.966 dated 15.01.2007 and on the self-same date filed a written application before the op no.2 for issuing a duplicate pass book and also filed an application in the prescribed format on 05.05.2007. accordingly, a duplicate pass book was issued to them by the op no.2 on 23.06.2007 and since then the complainant used to withdraw the interest by the duplicate pass book. but, the original pass book was found from the custody of the op no.2 and handed over to the complainant no.1 by the counter clerk of the op no.1. the mis a/c was matured in april, 2008 and closure slip dated 08.07.2008 was issued by the asstt. post master, sb/nsc/kvp, serampore. thereafter, the complainants applied for the maturity amount, but the op no.2 did not pay it. accordingly, the complainants by a letter dated 16.07.2008 requested the op no.2 to pay the maturity amount of the mis a/c with interest, but without any effect. thus, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.07.2008 to the op no.2 requesting it to release the maturity amount, which though replied by acknowledging the receipt of the said notice and assured the complainants that the matter is under consideration and conclusive disposal will be communicated as early as possible, but nothing was done. again, he sent another legal notice dated 20.02.2009 to the op no.2, to which a reply was made informing that a letter dated 05.02.2009 was issued by the op no.2 to the complainants directing them to contact the op no.3, but the complainants did not do so. lastly, this case. on the other hand, in the w.v. by the op no.3, it has been the contention that from the records of the office of this op, the complainants using the duplicate pass book withdrew rs,6,885/-, being interest instalment nos. 54-62 @ rs.765, on 25.06.2007, rs.3,825/-, being interest instalment nos. 63 to 67 @ rs.765, on 28.11.2007, rs.3,060/-, being interest instalment nos. 68-71 @ rs.765, on 11.04.2008, rs.765/- being interest instalment no.72 on 07.07.2006, totalling rs.14,535/-. on the other hand, the complainants withdrew the same amount by the original pass books. accordingly, the complainants have intentionally cheated the postal department with the connivance of some staff. until the matter of double drawing of interest amount is settled, the payment of further money cannot be made. so, there is absolutely no deficiency in service, and the case be dismissed with cost. it is to be considered if the impugned judgment/order made in part in favour of the complainants is required to be interfered with and reversed in this appeal.decision with reasons. ld. advocate for the appellants has submitted that the case involves one mis of the respondents which was opened in april, 2002. on account of report of loss of the original pass book in this respect by the respondents, a duplicate pass book was issued in their favour on 23.06.2007. but, the respondents used to take the interest amounts through both the original and the duplicate pass books. only 11.04.2008, the anomaly could be detected by the postal department on account of double payments on that particular date, which the respondents could not account for. accordingly, there has been no deficiency in service by the appellants towards the respondents. this appeal has been made against the order of compensation and litigation cost. ld. advocate for the respondents has made out that in april, 2002, rs.1,02,000/- was deposited in one mis in the joint names of the respondents before the serampore head post office. as the original pass book was lost, there has been a diary with serampore p.s. vide g.d.e. no. 966 dated 15.01.2007 and on the same day a formal written application was made by the respondents/complainants to the op no.2 for issuing a duplicate pass book and so there has been no lapse from the side of the respondents/complainants. as the mis account was matured in april, 2008 and in terms of the withdrawal slip by the postal department, the respondents/complainants applied for the maturity amount of the mis, which remained unsettled. accordingly, the case has been made after issuing several letters to the postal authority and such letters also remained unanswered, and if replied, the same is mostly vague in nature. the respondents/complainants did never sign on the withdrawal slips on the basis of the original pass book due to them and accordingly, the judgment/order is a proper one. it goes without much saying that there is strict lack of vigilance in monetary transactions by the said serampore head post office and indolence on its part in respect of this particular mis of the respondents while making double payments at successive dates without any kind of scrutinization and effortlessly. the stand that on 11.04.2008, the anomaly was detected and some effective measures were taken, is also nullified by subsequent payment on the basis of the original pas book thereafter on 07.07.2008. there is at all no fir against the respondents/complainants and/or any wrongdoer for the misappropriation of public money, which should/could have been done if there has been no kind of any laches of the postal department and it acted in good faith. there is lack of vigilance, alertness and coherency in the works of the appellants, rather in a disarray format. the callousness is apparent and visible/writ large. considering all the facts and figures, there his nothing to make any kind of interference in the impugned judgment/order, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper. in the result, the appeal fails. hence,ordered that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the respondents with a cost of rs.5,000/-. the impugned judgment/order is hereby affirmed.
Judgment:

Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/order dated 26.11.2012 in Case No. CC/15/2011, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment/order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest, in part, with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) and directed the OPs to pay the maturity amount of the M.I.S. after deducting the double drawing interest instalments, if any and also directed them to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the maturity amount to be paid to the Petitioners for the period from the date of the maturity till the date of payment within one month from the date of the order and further directed them to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the Petitioners towards compensation for their mental agony and harassment and directed that such payment of Rs.10,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) to be paid to the Petitioners within one month from the date of the order, i.d., 9% interest will carry till full realization.

The case of the Complainants, in their petition of complaint, is that they availed the service of savings by depositing an amount of Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand) in the Monthly Income Scheme (MIS), vide A/c No. 65038404 with the OP No.2. Due to loss of the Pass Book of the said MIS, Complainant No.1 lodged G.D.E. No.966 dated 15.01.2007 and on the self-same date filed a written application before the OP No.2 for issuing a duplicate Pass Book and also filed an application in the prescribed format on 05.05.2007. Accordingly, a duplicate Pass Book was issued to them by the OP No.2 on 23.06.2007 and since then the Complainant used to withdraw the interest by the duplicate Pass Book. But, the original Pass Book was found from the custody of the OP No.2 and handed over to the Complainant No.1 by the Counter Clerk of the OP No.1. The MIS a/c was matured in April, 2008 and Closure Slip dated 08.07.2008 was issued by the Asstt. Post Master, SB/NSC/KVP, Serampore. Thereafter, the Complainants applied for the maturity amount, but the OP No.2 did not pay it. Accordingly, the Complainants by a letter dated 16.07.2008 requested the OP No.2 to pay the maturity amount of the MIS a/c with interest, but without any effect. Thus, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 31.07.2008 to the OP No.2 requesting it to release the maturity amount, which though replied by acknowledging the receipt of the said notice and assured the Complainants that the matter is under consideration and conclusive disposal will be communicated as early as possible, but nothing was done. Again, he sent another legal notice dated 20.02.2009 to the OP No.2, to which a reply was made informing that a letter dated 05.02.2009 was issued by the OP No.2 to the Complainants directing them to contact the OP No.3, but the Complainants did not do so. Lastly, this case.

On the other hand, in the W.V. by the OP No.3, it has been the contention that from the records of the office of this OP, the Complainants using the Duplicate Pass Book withdrew Rs,6,885/-, being interest instalment nos. 54-62 @ Rs.765, on 25.06.2007, Rs.3,825/-, being interest instalment nos. 63 to 67 @ Rs.765, on 28.11.2007, Rs.3,060/-, being interest instalment nos. 68-71 @ Rs.765, on 11.04.2008, Rs.765/- being interest instalment no.72 on 07.07.2006, totalling Rs.14,535/-. On the other hand, the Complainants withdrew the same amount by the original Pass Books. Accordingly, the Complainants have intentionally cheated the Postal Department with the connivance of some staff. Until the matter of double drawing of interest amount is settled, the payment of further money cannot be made. So, there is absolutely no deficiency in service, and the case be dismissed with cost.

It is to be considered if the impugned judgment/order made in part in favour of the Complainants is required to be interfered with and reversed in this appeal.

Decision with reasons.

Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the case involves one MIS of the Respondents which was opened in April, 2002. On account of report of loss of the Original Pass Book in this respect by the Respondents, a Duplicate Pass Book was issued in their favour on 23.06.2007. But, the Respondents used to take the interest amounts through both the original and the duplicate Pass Books. Only 11.04.2008, the anomaly could be detected by the Postal Department on account of double payments on that particular date, which the Respondents could not account for. Accordingly, there has been no deficiency in service by the Appellants towards the Respondents. This appeal has been made against the order of compensation and litigation cost.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has made out that in April, 2002, Rs.1,02,000/- was deposited in one MIS in the joint names of the Respondents before the Serampore Head Post Office. As the original Pass Book was lost, there has been a diary with Serampore P.S. vide G.D.E. No. 966 dated 15.01.2007 and on the same day a formal written application was made by the Respondents/Complainants to the OP No.2 for issuing a Duplicate Pass Book and so there has been no lapse from the side of the Respondents/Complainants. As the MIS account was matured in April, 2008 and in terms of the withdrawal slip by the Postal Department, the Respondents/Complainants applied for the maturity amount of the MIS, which remained unsettled. Accordingly, the case has been made after issuing several letters to the Postal authority and such letters also remained unanswered, and if replied, the same is mostly vague in nature. The Respondents/Complainants did never sign on the withdrawal slips on the basis of the Original Pass Book due to them and accordingly, the judgment/order is a proper one.

It goes without much saying that there is strict lack of vigilance in monetary transactions by the said Serampore Head Post Office and indolence on its part in respect of this particular MIS of the Respondents while making double payments at successive dates without any kind of scrutinization and effortlessly. The stand that on 11.04.2008, the anomaly was detected and some effective measures were taken, is also nullified by subsequent payment on the basis of the Original Pas Book thereafter on 07.07.2008. There is at all no FIR against the Respondents/Complainants and/or any wrongdoer for the misappropriation of public money, which should/could have been done if there has been no kind of any laches of the Postal Department and it acted in good faith. There is lack of vigilance, alertness and coherency in the works of the Appellants, rather in a disarray format. The callousness is apparent and visible/writ large.

Considering all the facts and figures, there his nothing to make any kind of interference in the impugned judgment/order, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just and proper.

In the result, the appeal fails.

Hence,

Ordered

that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondents with a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The impugned judgment/order is hereby affirmed.