State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sub Post Master vs Santosh Kaur on 31 October, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.397 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2010.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2011.
1. Sub Post Master, Post Office, Ladhewali, Jalandhar.
2. Senior Superintendent of Posts, Head Post Office, Jalandhar.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Santosh Kaur W/o late Sh. Parminder Singh, VPO Ladhewali, Jalandhar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.01.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. R.P. Singh, Advocate for
Sh. Namit Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mrs. Santosh Kaur, in person.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Sub Post Master, Post Office, Ladhewali, Jalandhar and another, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Mrs. Santosh Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, pleading that her husband Sh. Parminder Singh deposited Rs.1.00 lac under 'Time Deposit Scheme' for one year vide account no.30257 on 25.01.2008 with appellant no.1 and the maturity date was 25.01.2009. The First Appeal No.397 of 2010 2 husband of the respondent died on 09.03.2008 and the intimation regarding the death of husband of the respondent was given to appellant no.1 verbally and appellant no.1 advised the respondent to take refund of the amount on maturity with full interest.
3. On maturity date i.e. 25.01.2009, respondent went to appellant no1. to take refund of her husband's money, but appellant no.1 asked the respondent to submit the death certificate, which was supplied. Appellant no.1 asked the respondent to bring some claim form from appellant no.2, which was brought and completed. Again, appellant no.1 asked to submit 'consent letter' of her son Harpreet Singh and daughter Paramjit Kaur, for making the said payment and the same was also submitted on 26.02.2009 and appellant no.1 assured the respondent that the refund of the amount will be made within few days.
4. Appellant no.1 again asked the respondent to submit a declaration if the amount of the deceased exceeded Rs.1.00 lac, from a competent court of law, which was also submitted and the appellant no.1 told the respondent that her case would be sent to Chandigarh, for final disposal and also suggested that if the respondent wants to get early payment, then no interest will be paid and for that, she has to make an application. The respondent even agreed to get the payment without interest and submitted the application with appellant no.1, which was received on 16.04.2009. Appellant no.1 told the respondent that all the documents have been sent to appellant no.2 for making the payment without interest, but nothing was done thereafter and ultimately, vide letter dated 29.04.2009, respondent was instructed to produce 'succession certificate' from a competent court. The respondent submitted all the requisite documents, but the payment was not made and that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and they have caused a lot of mental tension and harassment and the respondent is entitled to claim the following:-
i) Principal amount deposited by respondent's : Rs.1,00,000/-
husband:
First Appeal No.397 of 2010 3
ii) Interest upto the date of maturity : Rs.6400/-
iii) Interest after maturity dated @ 12% : Rs.4000/-
iv) Litigation expenses : Rs.3000/-
v) Mental tension and harassment : Rs.80,000/-
Total . Rs.1,93,400/-
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellants, it was admitted that One Year TD Account No.30257 for Rs.1.00 lac was opened by Sh.
Parminder Singh at Ladhewali Post Office on 25.01.2008. It was also admitted that Smt. Santosh Kaur widow of Sh. Parminder Singh preferred claim in SB/84 through SPM Ladhewali/PM Jalandhar Cantt. which was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office on 21.04.2009. It was also admitted that the respondent was asked to produce 'succession certificate' from the competent court of law, as the amount of TD account after adding interest, exceeded Rs.1.00 lac and the succession certificate was required as per the rules. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the insistence for production of the 'succession certificate' by the appellants in the absence of any dispute among the legal heirs is not, at all, justified and amounts to deficiency in rendering service, and allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to release the payment of Rs.1.00 lac with permissible interest from the date of maturity, with costs of litigation of Rs.3000/-. In case of default of payment within one month, 9% interest was also awarded.
First Appeal No.397 of 2010 4
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.01.2010, the appellants have come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The main contention on behalf of the appellants was that the 'succession certificate' was not supplied and for not supplying the same, the payment was not made. Reliance has been placed on Rule-13 of the Post Office Saving Bank General Rules, 1981.
11. During the course of arguments, the respondent has produced 'succession certificate' issued by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar in favour of the respondent Santosh Kaur, Paramjit Kaur daughter and Harpreet Singh son of deceased Parminder Singh. As per the 'succession certificate', all the three of them are authorized to collect the amount in question to the extent of 1/3rd share each.
12. In view of the 'succession certificate' issued in favour of the respondent as well as her daughter and son, who are the legal heirs of deceased Parminder Singh, the appeal filed by the appellants is disposed of and the impugned order dated 22.01.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay the Term Deposit amount of Rs.1.00 lac deposited by deceased Parminder Singh, along with interest permissible from the date of deposit till the date of maturity, in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each to respondent Santosh Kaur, her daughter Paramjit Kaur and son Harpreet Singh, along with costs of litigation Rs.3000/- as already awarded by the District Forum. The appellants are also directed to pay interest on the principal amount @ 9% per annum from the date of maturity till realization. It is made clear that the entire amount shall be disbursed to the above three legal heirs of deceased Parminder Singh, in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each.
First Appeal No.397 of 2010 5
13. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd share each to respondent Santosh Kaur, her daughter Paramjit Kaur and son Harpreet Singh, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
14. The remaining entire amount shall be paid by the appellants, as per the observation made above, within two months from the receipt of copy of the order.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.10.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 31, 2011.
(Gurmeet S)