State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Supdt. Of Post Offices, vs Sri Soumadip Manna (Minor) on 18 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/34/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/10/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/100/2016 of District Purba Midnapur) 1. The Supdt. of Post Offices, Tamluk Division, Tamluk Purba Medinipur. 2. Post Master (H.SQ -1) Tamluk, H.O. -Tamluk Purba Medinipur. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Soumadip Manna (Minor) Rep. by Natural Guardian, Sri Dasarath Manna, Vill. & P.O. - Bahichard, Purba Medinipur. 2. Soma Bhakta Vill. - Kota, P.O. & P.S. - Kolaglal, Purba Medinipur. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Ratna Brahmachari, Mr. Sanjoy Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Kajal Mukherjee, Advocate Dated : 18 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 09.01.2017 Date of Hearing - 05.09.2017 The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is to the Judgement/Final Order dated 04.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (in short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 100/2016. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2/Appellants to hand over the duplicate KVPs to the minor's father within 15 days from the date of order. The OP Nos. 1 & 2/appellants were also directed to deposit the matured value of the KVPs in any nationalised bank in the name of minor for the welfare of the minor, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant/Respondent No.1 within 15 days from date otherwise they will be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages.
The Respondent No.1herein being Complainant's father lodged the complaint asserting that being natural guardian of minor Soumadip Manna he purchased two Kishan Vikash Patra (KVP) of Rs.10,000/- each on 01.06.2005 from the Tamluk Post Office. On 20.08.2012 the complainant's father suddenly found that both the certificates were missing from his house and immediately he lodged a diary with Tamluk P.S. Thereafter, the natural guardian of the minor have made prayer to the Post Master of Tamluk Head P.O. to issue duplicate KVP Certificates. On 20.05.2013 as per direction of Post Master, the father of the natural guardian Sri Dasharath Manna deposited the required documents to get the duplicate KVP but even after long period, the post office did not deliver the same to the complainant. Hence, the said Sri Dasharath Manna being natural guardian of the minor approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs like - (a) to direct the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to make delivery duplicate KVP certificates; (b) an order of compensation for recurring interest from 01.02.2014 till the date of delivery of duplicate KVPs, litigation cost etc. The Appellants herein being OP Nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version has stated that the original KVP certificates were lying under the custody of OP No.3/Respondent No.2 i.e. the mother of the minor named Soma Bhakta and as such it could not be delivered. It has further been stated that the OP No.3 i.e. the wife of natural guardian of the minor has been living apart with the minor and she lodged a case for maintenance being MIS Case No.29/2011 and a complaint for allegation of cruelty being C.R. Case No.44/2011 and as the OP No.3 has made a prayer to the post master of Tamluk H.O. not to issue any duplicate certificate, the duplice certificates could not be delivered.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the opposite party nos. 1 & 2. To assail the said order, the OP Nos. 1 & 2have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mrs. Ratna Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has submitted that during existence of original KVPs, the post office found it difficult to issue duplicate certificate of KVPs and he has also stated that the post office asked both the parties to obtain order from the Court but either of the parties did not take any steps to that effect. She has further submitted that the employees of post office have no personal reason to detain the KVPs but owing to family dispute between the father and mother of minor, who is otherwise physically disabled, the minor has suffered tremendously. But for that reason, the Ld. District Forum should not have attributed the liability upon the postal department and as such the amount awarded as compensation and litigation cost against the appellants may be set aside.
Mr. Kajal Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1, on the other hand has contended that the certificates were purchased in the name of minor Saumadip to which his father Sri Dasarath Manna was the natural guardian and therefore, when the respondent no.1 lodged a missing diary about those certificates, the Post Master of Tamluk Post Office should have handed over duplicate certificates on the date of maturity i.e. on 01.02.2014 and in that perspective, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in passing the order impugned.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Undisputedly, Saumadip in whose name two KVPs of Rs.10,000/- each were purchased from Tamluk Head Post Office was born on 01.03.2005 as per record and those two KVPs were purchased by the father of minor being natural guardian of the minor. Those KVPs were purchased on 01.06.2005. Evidently, the respondent no.2/OP No.3 is the mother of the minor who has been living apart with the minor in her parental home.
On 20.08.2012 for the first time, it was noticed by the father of the minor that those original KVPs were missing from his house and as such he lodged one diary with Tamluk P.S. on the self same date. In fact, those two original KVPs were taken away by the mother of the minor. It is also evident that the mother of the minor has initiated a proceeding of maintenance for herself and her minor son being Misc. Case No.29/2011 and also filed one complaint on the ground of harassment/cruelty against her husband i.e. the father of the minor which has been registered as CR Case No.44/2011. Therefore, it is quite evident that in the year 2011, the mother of the minor along with minor left her husband's place and staying in her parental house.
From the materials on record, it also appears that those two certificates were matured on 01.02.2014 and the respondent no.1 after receiving the information from the P.O. regarding whereabout of the original KVPs approached the respondent no.2/wife but the mother of the minor flatly refused the same. Such an incident has happened on 19.06.2016. Finding no other alternative, the respondent no.1 approached the Ld. District Forum.
In such a situation, the Ld. District Forum should not have imposed any compensation upon the Postal Authority or litigation cost because due to internal squabble between the spouses, the minor has suffered and in this regard, the Postal Department has nothing to do without waiting any order from any competent Court of Law. The Ld. District Forum should have appreciated that the mother is also a natural guardian of the minor in whose custody the minor has been living. The relation between the parents of minor became strained and as such the Post Master, Tamluk Post Office also did not find itself comfortable to handover the certificates to the father of the minor, particularly when written objection was filed by the mother of the minor.
Considering all the above, I feel that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in directing the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to keep the matured values of the KVPs in any nationalised bank in the name of the minor Saumadip Manna till he attains majority but as there was no deficiency on the part of the Postal Department, the Ld. District Forum should not have awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- or litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and as such the amount awarded for compensation and litigation costs are liable to be set aside.
I also do not find any reason for imposition of punitive damages of Rs.100/- per day. In a decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC 429 (General Motor (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Vs. - Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr.) a question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether in absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages is permissible. In answering to the question - the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed - "Normally, punitive damages are awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specifically pleaded".
Neither there is any averment in the complaint about suffering of punitive damages by the other consumers nor the appellant was aware that any such claim is to be met by it and the appellant having no notice of such a claim, the said order is contrary to the principles of fair procedure and natural justice. Therefore, the order of punitive damages imposed by the Ld. District Forum is not sustainable in the eye of law.
In view of the above, the impugned Judgement/Final Order is modified to the extent that the appellants/OP Nos.1 & 2 shall deposit the maturity value of KVPs being Nos.52CD231372 and 52CD231328 in the name of minor Saumadip Manna in the Post Office or in any nationalised bank for a period till he attains majority and in this regard the appellant no.2/OP No.2 is directed to submit a report of compliance before the Ld. District Forum within 30 days from the date positively.
With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for information.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER