State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govt. Of India vs Sri Shib Nath Das on 10 June, 2016
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/720/2015 (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/05/2015 in Case No. CC/522/2014 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Govt. of India Yogayog Bhawan, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata - 700 012. 2. The Chief Post Master General Yogayog Bhawan, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata - 700 012. 3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Office North Presidency Division, Barrackpore, Kolkata - 700 120. 4. Post Master, Shyamnagar P.O. Shyamnagar, P.S. - Jagaddal, P.O. - Shyamnagar, Pin - 743 127. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Shib Nath Das S/o Late Khudi Ram Das, presently at Parvoti Bhawan, Apanjan, Kalitala Road, Chandanangar, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712 136. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Dipanjan Datta Ms. Sukanya Datta , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee, Mr. Nilanjan Das., Advocate ORDER Heard on - 06.06.2016 Judgement on - Friday, 10th day of June, 2016. PER HON'BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDGEMENT
Challenge in this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the judgement dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in consumer complaint no. 522/2014 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the respondent herein u/s 12 of the Act was allowed on contest with direction upon the opposite parties/appellants to pay the matured value of 10 nos. of Kishan Vikash Patra (K.V.P.) amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the Respondent with further interest, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.
The respondent herein initiated the complaint u/s 12 of the Act alleging that being an employee of Government of India, for the purpose of future education of his two minor daughters, he purchased 10 KVPs of Rs. 10,000/- each in the joint names of himself and minor daughter Sreosee Das from Appellant no.4 i.e. Post Master, Shyamnagar Post Office on 22.11.2005. The maturity date of all those KVPs was on 21.06.2014. On 26.06.2014 the Respondent approached the Appellant no.4 for taking necessary steps for encashment of those KVPs as well as re-investment of the matured value. But the Appellant no.4 requested the Respondent to visit him after a week with PAN Card, Residential Proof and Voter Card of the daughter of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent visited the Appellant no.4 with all those documents but Appellant no.4 disclosed the Respondent that he will not be able to disburse the amount and to allow the Respondent to re-invest the mature value on the ground that one of the certificate holders i.e. the Respondent's daughter Sreosee Das was a minor. All the correspondence and representations of the Respondent in this regard went futile. So, the complaint was initiated with certain prayers like - a) OP nos. 1 to 4 be directed to pay the matured value of 10 nos. of KVPs having face value of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/-; b) To direct the OP nos. 1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- ; c) to pay litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- etc. The Appellant being the Opposite Parties by filing written version took a plea that at the relevant time of purchasing of KVPs, the daughter of the Complainant namely Sreosee Das was a minor and as per Kishan Vikash Patra Rules 1988, Joint B-Type Certificate may be issued jointly to two adults payable to either of the holder jointly or to the survivor. Moreover, as per Rule 23(5) of the Post Office Savings Bank Mannual, Vol.-II, no interest will be payable if certificate is purchased in contravention of the Rule. The OPs have also stated that as per office record, the said KVPs were purchased through SAS Agent and the fact of minority of Sreosee Das was not mentioned in the space specified for in the KVP purchased Application Form.
After assessing the evidence adduced by the parties and other materials on record, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint with certain directions as indicated above, which prompted the OPs to prefer this appeal.
We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by Mr. Dipanjan Datta and Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee, Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
On evaluation of the materials of record, it would reveal that the Respondent is an employee of Indian Railways under Govt. of India since 1990 and for the purpose of future educational expenses of his two minor daughters, he has purchased 10 nos. of KVPs of Rs. 10,000/- each on 22.11.2005 with a stipulation that he would get the matured value of Rs.20,000/- each equal to Rs.20,00,000/- on the date of maturity of those certificates on 21.06.2014. After stipulated date of maturity, the Respondent went to the office of Post Master, Shyamnagar Post Office (Appellant no.4) for withdrawal of the amount and for investment but the Appellant no.4 refused to hand over the same on the ground that at the relevant time of purchase of certificates, Sreosee Das i.e. the daughter of Respondent was a minor. It should be noted here that the Respondent has procured those KVP certificates from SAS Agent and the date of birth of Sreosee Das was not mentioned in the space specified form in the KVP purchased Application Form.
Mr. Dipanjan Datta , Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants has drawn our attention to the certificates from where it reveals that those KVP certificates were purchased in the joint name of 1) Sreosee Das and 2) Sri Shibnath Das i.e. the Respondent and since Sreosee Das was a minor at the relevant time and in accordance with the Rule-6(2)of Kishan Vikash Patra Rules, 1988 a joint A-Type Certificate or B-Type Certificate may be issued jointly to two adults payable to either of the holders jointly or to the survivor. Referring to the said Rule, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Post Master of Shyamnagar Post Office was not in a position to disburse the matured value. He has also submitted that the said amount can only be released without any interest as per Rule-23(5) of Post Office Savings Bank Mannual (Vol.II). Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has finally submitted that the Postal Authorities have to act on the basis of rules and manual and when the same does not authorise the Postal Authorities to release the maturity value of KVPs in favour of a minor, the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate the matter from proper perspective and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Mr. Tarunjyoti Banerjee, Ld. Advocates appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand has contended that his client purchased the KVPs through SAS Agent of the Post Office and being satisfied with the Application Form and other documents when the Appellant no.4 had accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- each in respect of 10 nos. of KVP certificates with an assurance to pay the maturity value on 21.06.2014, in any circumstances, the Appellants cannot absolve their responsibility. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance to several decisions like - 1) 2005 (3) CPR 10 (NC) (The Post Master Gemneral, HP Circle & Ors. - Vs. - The Khanyara Co-operative Forest Socieity Ltd.); 2) 2015 (3) CPR 562 (NC) (B. Subbarao - Vs. - Ms. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.); 3) IV (2005) CPJ 97 (NC) (Godavari Grameena Bank - Vs. - Teja Poultry Farm) and 4) IV (2005) CPJ 95 (NC) (Post Master & Ors. - Vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity).
We have considered the rival contentions. Giving a thoughtful consideration to the matter, it appears to us that when the Respondent approached the Post Master of Shyamnagar Post Office through SAS Agent to purchase 10 nos. of KVPs and in the application the age or date of birth in the Application Form was blank, the Post Master should not have issued certificates without being satisfied about the age of the daughter of the Respondent. It is true that the extant Rule as contained in 23(5) of Post Office Saving Bank Manual (Vol.II), does not authorise the Postal Authority to give interest in contravention of the Rules, but such a fault has occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the Post Master. Perhaps, the Post Master has relied upon the assurance of SAS Agent in this regard, but had the Post Master refused to entertain such an application form without ascertaining the actual age of Sreosee Das, Respondent would have an opportunity to keep the said amount in any Nationalised Bank or in any other financial institutions from which he could earn a better return.
In Post Master and others case (Supra), the National Commission has held -"certificate issued to the investor is a contract between the parties and that document clearly stated that the Complainant shall be getting a given amount at the time of maturity and in our view the Complainant is entitled for this amount and no less".
The Hon'ble National Commission proceeded to observe that when an ordinary investor with a view to enhancing the resources invests in Govt. securities, which are popularised manifestly to attract the customer, he commits no error. No rules are shown to him except the return on the investment. The Appellants had totally failed to show us as to under what conditions, the Respondent/Complainant was allowed to issue those 10 nos. of KVP certificates in spite of non-mentioning the age or date of birth of Sreosee Das in the space specified form in the KVP purchased Application Form. In the case of the Post Master General, HP Circle & Ors. (Supra), the National Commission has observed - "Where Post Office itself was at fault in issuing National Saving Certificate in name of a society which as per rule was irregular and did not find irregularity till maturity of certificate, it could not deny the maturity amount on a plea of irregularity in issuance of certificate".
Therefore, after giving due consideration to the submission of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in passing the order directing the OPs/Appellants to pay the matured value of 10 nos. of KVPs having face value of Rs.10,000/- each i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant. However, taking into consideration, the prevalent bank interest, we think an interest of 6% p.a. in place of 9% p.a. from the date of order of Ld. District Forum till the realisation of the entire amount would meet the ends of justice.
So far as payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, we are of the view that the Complainant/Respondent is equally responsible for showing indifferent attitude in mentioning the age of his minor daughter Sreosee Das in the Application Form and as such owing to such contributory negligence on the part of the Complainant/Respondent, the Ld. District Forum should not have awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and as such the said order should be set aside. However, the Complainant/Respondent would get Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost as imposed by the Ld. District Forum.
Consequently, the impugned judgement is modified to the extent that the Appellants/OPs to pay the matured value of 10 nos. of KVPs amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent with an interest thereon @6% p.a. from the date of the order of Ld. District Forum i.e. from 19.05.2015 till its full realisation. The Appellants/OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent as litigation cost. All the payments must be made within sixty (60) days hereof otherwise Respondent shall have liability to put the order in execution.
The instant appeal is, thus, allowed on contest in part with certain modifications, as indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send the copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information and necessary action. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER