National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Gnyan Narayan Dash vs Sub Post Master, Sakhigopal & Ors. on 4 April, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2050 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 23.11.2009 in First Appeals No.168, 161 & 581 of 2008 of the State Commission, Orissa) Sri Gnyan Narayan Dash S/o Late Biswanath Dash Vill/PO. Shriram Chandra Pur Dist. Puri, .Petitioner Versus 1. Sub Post Master, Sakhigopal AT/PO, Sakhigopal, Dist. Puri, Orissa 2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Puri division, Puri, at Post office Chhaka PO Head Post Office, Puri, Dist. Puri, Orissa 3. Chief Post Master General Orissa Circle Bhubaneswar At PMG Square, PO General Post Office, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Orissa 4. Director National Savings Institute Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India At: CGO Complex, Seminar Hills, Nagpur, Maharastra 5. Director, Small Savings, Govt. of Orissa At: Orissa Secretariat, Bhubaneswar Dist. Khurda, Orissa 6. Shri Chandradwaja Dash Postal Authorised Agent, Shakhigopal At Hotasahi, PO Sakhigopal Dist. Puri, Orissa .........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoranjan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 4-4-2011 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 23.11.2009. The impugned order was in relation to three First Appeals viz. F.A. Nos.168 of 2008, 161 of 2008 and 581 of 2008. F.A. No.581 of 2008 was by the State of Orissa against the Complainant Gnyan Narayan Dash and the postal department. F.A. No.161 of 2008 Director National Savings Institute Government of India was the appellant against the Complainant and the postal department.
2. FA No.168 of 2008, by the Complainant Gnyan Narayan Dash, against the department of Post, department of Small Savings and the Postal authorize agent, was dismissed as devoid of any merit. The other two appeals were both allowed by the State Commission. While dismissing F.A. No.168 of 2008, the State Commission has made the following observations:-
On close scrutiny of the case of the parties, we have got reason to hold in view of the analysis made in foregoing paragraphs that due to sheer negligence of the complainant, he has been put to financial loss viz loss of 8% interest per annum in MIS opening account exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.3 lakhs in single account together with his share in joint accounts. He has already received this excess amount of deposit with POSB rate of interest after excess deposit is noticed by the Post Office. Intentional delay in refund of said amount through encashment of cheques by Post Office is not established. So question of compensation in favour of the complainant does not arise.
3. The revision petition against the above order has been filed with a delay of 87 days, over and above prescribed period of 90 days.
The petitioner has made an application for condonation, which was taken up for consideration on 09.12.2010 and 01.03.2011. It is claimed that the wife of the petitioner is an acute cardiac patient, whose condition got worsened during the first week of December, 2009. As the petitioner was required to be by her side constantly, he could take steps for filing the revision petitioner only after her health had improved by 21st March, 2010. The revision petition was eventually filed on 21.05.2010.
4. The petitioner was directed to submit record of treatment of his wife for the relevant period. In response, the petitioner has produced four pages of hand written prescriptions by one Dr. P.K.Acharya, Consulting Cardiologist. This is for the period 28.11.2009 to 18.7.2010. On several occasions, during this period, the doctor has recorded the general condition of the patient as good. This record of treatment does not justify the claim of the petitioner that he was so much pre-occupied with the serious heart condition of his wife that the delay in filing the revision petition became inescapable.
5. In the above background, the revision petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation i.e. delay of 87 days. The Revision Petitioner shall bear his own costs.
.
(R.C.JAIN, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER S./-