State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Post Master vs Yamuna Prasad on 17 March, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1997/2542 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. Post Master a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Yamuna Prasad a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER RESERVED State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No.2542 of 1997 1- The Post Master General, Department of Postal, Lucknow. 2- The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sultanpur Division, Sultanpur, District: Sultanpur. ....Appellant. Versus Sri Yamuna Prasad s/o Sri Kedarnath, R/o Kazyapur, Post: Meerapur, Tehsil: Sadar, District: Sultanpur. ...Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member. Dr. U.V. Singh for the appellants. None for the respondent. Date 16.7.2015 JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.7.2011, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Sultlanpur in complaint case No.129 of 1995, the appellants Post Master General and another have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable financial loss.
(2)From perusal of the records, it transpires that the order-sheets prior to the period 23.9.2010 are not available on record. They be traced out by the Registry and be kept on record. Notice was sent to the respondent by the Registrar also but the respondent did not appear to contest the appeal. Since the appeal was more than 18 years old and the service over the respondent was deemed sufficient, therefore, it was taken up for hearing on 18.3.2015. Ld. Counsel for the appellants was heard exparte.
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant Sri Yamuna Prasad purchased Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP) valued Rs.1,000.00 on 21.7.1989 from the Post Office, Ramganj, Sultanpur. The date of maturity of the aforesaid KVP was 21.1.1995 and the maturity value was Rs.2,000.00. From perusal of the records, it also transpires that the respondent/complainant claimed the maturity value on 23.1.1995 but was not paid, and therefore, he made a complaint about the same to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sultanpur and subsequently, filed complaint case no.129 of 1995 for redressal of his grievances.
The appellants Post Offices took the plea that the payment could not be made in time as it required verification of the documents. The payment was made on 3.11.1995 to the full satisfaction of the respondent/ complainant and the same was accepted by him without objection. The Forum below, after considering all facts, circumstances and evidence on record, directed (3) the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.500.00 as compensation in addition to Rs.100.00 as cost of litigation. It also directed the appellants to pay interest @ 14% on the maturity value from 22.1.1995 to 3.11.1995. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been filed.
Admittedly, there was no dispute regarding the genuineness of the KVP. The appellants paid the maturity value to the respondent on 3.11.1995. Now, the only question for determination is that whether it was justified for the appellant to withhold the maturity amount from the period 22.1.1995 to 3.11.1995 without any rhyme or reason and whether this amounts to deficiency in service or not ?
There is no dispute on the fact that the KVP was presented for encashment on 23.1.1995. The Forum below, after due consideration of all facts held that the undue delay of about 10 months was unwarranted and uncalled for and certainly it amounted to deficiency in service. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs permitted the Department of Post to allow the Post Office Savings Bank interest only for 2 years after the date of maturity. In the instant matter, admittedly, interest was not paid for the period 22.1.1995 to 3.11.1995 and, therefore, the respondent was entitled for the interest. The KVP carried interest @ 14% and, therefore, the Forum granted the same to the respondent. There is no remiss or apparent mis-interpretation of law in this connection. The Forum (4) below granted only a meagre sum of Rs.500.00 as compensation which is also justified in the given circumstances of misfeasance. The cost of Rs.100.00 can not be treated as excessive. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Sanjai Kumar) Presiding Member Member Jafri PA II Court No.4 [HON'BLE MR. Alok Kumar Bose] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Sanjay Kumar] MEMBER