State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Avik Roy vs The Senior Post Master, Parnasree Pally ... on 23 June, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/490/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/05/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/58/2016 of District Kolkata-III(South)) 1. Sri Avik Roy S/o Lt. Sudhir Chandra Roy, Parnashree Pally, Rekha Apartment, No.-L, 3rd floor, P.S. Behala, Kolkata - 700 060. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Senior Post Master, Parnasree Pally Sub Post Office P.S. Parnasree, Kolkata - 700 060. 2. The Sr. Post Master, Alipore Head Post- Office P.S. Alipore, Kolkata - 700 027. 3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office South Kolkata Division, P.S. Tollygunj, Kolkata - 700 029. 4. The Psot Master Guskara Sub - Post Office, Pin - 713 128. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Sayantani Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri Sanjoy kr. Ghosh, Advocate Dated : 23 Jun 2017 Final Order / Judgement
Date of Filing - 02.06.2016 Date of Hearing - 14.06.2017 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 11.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - III (South) (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 68/2016 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Appellant u/s 12 of the Act was dismissed on contest.
The Appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that the maternal grandmother and maternal uncle of the complainant, late Hemlata Ghosh and Dr. Anil Ghosh, widow and son of late Sachipati Ghosh of Rekha Apartment, No. - L, 3rd floor at premises no. 564, Parnashree Pally, P. S. - Behala, Kolkata - 700 060 during their life time deposited amount in the monthly income scheme of the OPs, vide 12 accounts lying with the Parnashree Pally Sub-Post Office. Amongst those accounts, 6 accounts were registered in the name of Dr. Anil Ghosh and rest 6 accounts were lying in the joint name of both DR. Anil Ghosh and late Hemlata Ghosh. On 08.09.1986, Hemlata (since deceased) made her last Will and Testament which was duly registered. By the said Will, Hemlata appointed her son Dr. Anil Ghosh (since deceased) and in his absence her daughter Ila Roy (since deceased) as the Executor and beneficiary of the said Will. Dr. Anil Ghosh died on 05.09.2001. Ila Roy, mother of the complainant filed one Act XXXIX (Probate) Case before the Ld. District Delegate at Alipore for granting Probate. During the pendency of the case, Ila Roy died on 17.06.2010 and in consequence of which the complainant was substituted. The Ld. 2nd Additional District Judge at Alipore granted Probate in favour of complainant on 30 .07.2012 in Original Suit No. 14/2008. Complainant submitted an application claiming a balance of 6 MIS accounts in his favour but did not get any response. On 26.11.2013 complainants sent another letter with relevant documents and received a reply requesting him to settle the dispute with Sr. Post Master, Alipore Head Post Office but the claim of the complainant remain unattended. Hence, the complainant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz- (a) to direct the OPs to submit the statements of accounts ;(b) to direct the OPs to make payment of MIS accounts with interest thereon ; (c) a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (d) cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The respondents being OPs by filing a joint written version have stated that as there is no deficiency in providing services on the part of them, the complaint is liable to be dismissed .
After assessing the materials on record including the evidence led by the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned judgement/final order dismissed the complaint with an observation that the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and without Succession Certificate, the OPs cannot release the amount as claimed and thereby dismissed the complaint. To assail the said order, the complainant has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that when a Probate has already been granted by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Alipore on 30.07.2012 in Original Suit No.14/2008 and further when the said Probate Order speaks about the 6 MIS Pass Book of Hemlata Ghosh, Testator appears showing an amount of Rs.2,04,000.00 paise, there is hardly any reason on the part of Postal Authority ( Respondents ) not to handover the matured amount of those MIS accounts lies with Parnashree Pally Sub-Post Office with interest in favour of the appellant being beneficiary of the Will .
Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the appellant has failed to produce the original MIS Pass Book and also failed to obtain the same as per Postal Rules and such the Ld. District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.
I have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record it would reveal that one Hemlata Ghosh alias Hena Ghosh wife of Sachipati Ghosh of premises no.564, Parnashree Pally, Kolkata - 700 060 during her life time executed a Will on 08.09.1986 appointing her son Dr. Anil Ghosh (who passed away on 05.09.2001) and in his absence her daughter Ila Roy as the Executor and beneficiary of the said Will. During her life time, Ila Roy instituted a Probate case being No. 376/2003 before the Ld. District Delegate at Alipore for granting Probate. Subsequently, the said application for Probate became contentious one, the said Probate case was numbered as Original Suit No.47/2005, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge at Alipore and re-numbered as Original Suit No. 14/2008.On account of sudden demise of Ila Roy on 17.06.2010, the appellant stepped into the shoe of Ila Roy, being son of her. In any case, the Ld. 2nd Addl. District Judge, Alipore granted the Probate in favour of the appellant on 30.07.2012 in respect of several properties including 6 MIS Pass Book of Parnashree Pally Sub-Post Office amounting to Rs.2,04,000/-. Needless to say, an order passed in Testamentary Jurisdiction or in other words the grant of Probate is judgement in rem. Therefore, being beneficiary of the estate of deceased Hemlata, when the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum, certainly he must be considered as 'Consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the observation of the Ld. District Forum in this regard is not tenable.
Now, we shall proceed to discuss whether the respondents were deficient in rendering services to the appellant. The fact remains that the appellant has failed to produce the original MIS Pass Books in the Post Office. In a question of the respondents - " Did you deposit the original pass book before the concerned office for encashing the MIS of deceased Hemlata Ghosh and deceased Dr. Anil Ghosh? " to which the appellant answered - "As I stated in my complaint that it was not possible, because initially till 30.07.2012, the Probate case in respect of the last Will of my Maternal grand-mother, Late Hemlata Ghosh was pending and subsequently I lost my bag, containing the original Pass Book of MIS accounts, which also compelled me to lodge a written complaint before the Parnashree P. S. on 07.09.2012. In another question - "Do you aware about the Postal Rules for encashing the MIS of deceased account holders?" To which the appellant answered -"Presently I have no knowledge".
Therefore, from the statement of appellant it becomes quite clear that the original Pass Book of MIS accounts are not lying within his custody. On the strength of granting Probate, he has also not approached the respondents to ascertain the procedure in case of loss of original Pass Books. So, no liability in this regard can be attributed upon the respondents. In other words, the respondents were not deficient in releasing the amount lying with the pass book of MIS accounts of deceased Hemlata Ghosh.
Considering the above, I find that though the appellant is a 'Consumer' as categorised in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act yet as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the respondents, the impugned order should not be interfered with.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The judgement / Final Order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in RBT/CC/58/2016 is hereby affirmed.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit - III for information. [HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER