State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Parul Mittal vs Post Master, Post Office, Jwalapur on 2 November, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 / 2010
Smt. Parul Mittal W/o Sh. Rajkumar Mittal
R/o Sarafa Bazar, Jwalapur
Post Khas, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Post Master, Post Office, Jwalapur
District Haridwar
2. Post Master, G.P.O.
Dehradun
3. Director, G.P.O.
Dehradun
4. A.S. Post, Haridwar
G.P.O., Haridwar
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
None for the Appellant
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 02/11/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President) (Oral):
This is complainant's appeal against the order dated 07.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, dismissing consumer complaint No. 290 of 2009, on the premise that the postal department has not made any deficiency in service in issuing the cheque for the amount of the matured sum under the two Five Year Saving Deposit Receipts.2
2. The consumer complaint was filed with the allegation that the postal department was duly obliged to pay the matured amount in cash and by not doing so, the postal department made deficiency in service. The contention so raised by the complainant, was not found legally tenable by the District Forum and the consumer complaint was, thus, dismissed by the order impugned.
3. None appeared on behalf of the complainant - appellant. We have heard the learned counsel for the postal department and considered his submissions in the light of the facts of the case. Having heard the learned counsel for the postal department and perused the material on record, we see no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. The reason for our above decision is that the District Forum was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the postal department was, under the Rules, duly obliged to give cheque of the matured sum instead of paying the amount in cash. This being the factual position under the Rules, the postal department has, in fact, not made any deficiency in service and the complainant was not justified in insisting that he should have been paid the amount in cash. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any factual and legal infirmity and the same is fit to be upheld.
5. In view of above, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K