State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Department Of Posts India And Others vs Sh. Rijvan Ahmed on 28 January, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 83 / 2010
1. Department of Posts India
through Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Dehradun Division, Dehradun
2. Post Master, Head Post Office
Roorkee, District Haridwar
3. Post Master General, Headquarter
Dehradun
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Rijvan Ahmed S/o Sh. Akhlak Ahmed
R/o P.S. Kotwali, Civil Lines
Roorkee, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent
Coram: C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 28/01/2011
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 31 of 2008 and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant interest @8% p.a. for the period from 03.11.2006 to 14.02.2007 on his investment in Kisan Vikas Patra.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Rijvan Ahmed had made an investment of Rs. 40,000/- in Kisan Vikas Patras (for short "KVP") issued by the opposite party No. 1 - Post 2 Master, Head Post Office, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 03.05.2000. The maturity date and value of these KVP was 03.11.2006 and Rs. 80,000/- respectively. However, the opposite party No. 1 made the payment of the maturity value of the KVP on 14.02.2007 with simple interest of Rs. 700/- calculated @3.5% p.a. for the period from 04.11.2006 to 14.02.2007. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service made by the opposite parties for not making timely payment of the maturity value of the KVP and for not paying interest @8% p.a. payable on KVP for the period the payment was delayed. When the opposite parties did not take any action on the notice sent by the complainant, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The District Forum, Haridwar allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 08.03.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merit.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of the complainant - respondent. A notice was sent to the respondent by registered post on 28.04.2010, which was received back with the endorsement that the addressee was not traceable at the address. Thereafter, the notice was got published in a daily newspaper "Harish Chandra Uvach" dated 08.01.2011. Thus, the service of notice upon the respondent is sufficient and this Commission has now no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the complainant - respondent.
4. At the very outset, we would like to say that the District Forum has failed to consider the main issue involved in the consumer complainant as to whether the appellants had committed deficiency in service by making the payment of the KVP on 14.02.2007. Had the 3 KVP's been presented on due date, i.e., 03.11.2006 and had the appellants not made the payment immediately after the presentation of the KVP's, then it would have been quite just to infer out that the appellants had been deficient in providing service. But in this case, the said KVP's were pledged with Punjab National Bank against a loan taken by the complainant. Thus, it was the duty of the complainant to ask the Punjab National Bank to present the pledged KVP's on due date for their encashment. No such evidence is available on record that the complainant had done so. The bank had sent the KVP's to the appellant No. 1 on 10.02.2007. The appellant No. 1 made the payment of the maturity value on 14.02.2007. When the complainant sent a notice to the bank regarding payment of interest for the period from 04.11.2006 to 14.02.2007, the appellant No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 700/- as interest calculated @3.5% p.a. in accordance with the directions issued vide SB Order No. 1/2009 by Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts (Paper No. 16). Thus, the appellants can not be blamed for making delayed payment of the maturity value and interest accrued on this amount after the date of maturity. It was the complainant or the bank who failed to submit the KVP's to the Post Office on due date and, therefore, the appellants can not be held liable for committing deficiency in service. The District Forum has not considered this aspect of the case and, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
5. As a result, the appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.03.2010 of the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 31 of 2008 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) K