State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Tapan Kumar Mallick vs The Sub-Post Master, Barakar on 9 October, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1344/2017 ( Date of Filing : 27 Dec 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/11/2017 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/176/2017 of District Birbhum) 1. Sri Tapan Kumar Mallick S/o Lt. Mrityunjay Mallick, C/o Narayan Chandra Mallick, Vill. & P.O.- Kenduadihi, Khudiram Sarani, P.S. & Dist. Bankura. 2. Smt. Rita Mallick W/o Sri Tapan Kr. Mallick, C/o Narayan Chandra Mallick, Vill. & P.O.- Kenduadihi, Khudiram Sarani, P.S. & Dist. Bankura. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Sub-Post Master, Barakar P.O. & P.S. Kulti, Dist. Paschim Burdwan, Pin-713 343 2. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Asansol Division, P.O. & P.S. Asansol, Dist. paschim Burdwan, Pin- 713 301. 3. The Post Master General(Dept. of Post) South Bengal Region, Kolkata-700 012. 4. The General manager, (PA & F), West Bengal Postal Service 20/B, Abdul Hamid Street, Kolkata- 700 069. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Suman Bez, Advocate For the Respondent: Abhijit Bhadra, Advocate Dated : 09 Oct 2018 Final Order / Judgement
The challenge in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity, 'the Act') is to the order being Order No. 06 dated 30th November, 2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (in short 'Ld. District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 176 of 2017 whereby the application filed by the complainants under Section 24A of the Act was rejected and consequently the complaint was dismissed.
The appellants here being complainants lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum under Section 12 of the Act asserting that the appellant no. 1 is an ex-employee of post office and while he was in service he purchased some National Savings Certificate (NSC) from opposite party no. 1 post office in his name and also in the name of complainant no. 2 i.e. his wife which was issued to them by opposite party no. 1 on 08.12.2011 and the date of maturity as endorsed therein on 08.12.2016. After maturity of the said NSC, the appellants approached the opposite parties but could not succeed. Hence, the appellants herein being complainants approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of respondents/opposite parties with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) refund of Rs. 32,020/- being the maturity value of two National Savings Scheme with prevailing rate of interest payable on and from the date of maturity till the final disbursement of the same; (b) Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (c) Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
At the time of presentation of the complaint, complainants have also filed one application under Section 24A of the Act with prayer for admission of the case after condoning the delay in filing the complaint.
Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order rejected the application filed by the appellants/complainants under Section 24A of the Act and thereby dismissed the complaint. To impeach the said order, the complainants have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.
I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also scrutinised the materials on record.
Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it would reveal that the appellant no. 1 is an ex-employee of postal department and on the allegation of misappropriation and/or defalcation of public money from Burnpur Market Post Office by appellant no. 1 with some others an FIR was lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Asansol and on the basis of same one case being Hirapur P.S. Case No. 232 of 2012 and another case being Hirapur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013 was started. The appellant no. 1 along with other two FIR named accused persons were arrested and later on they were released on bail. After investigating into the matter, the police submitted charge-sheet and the matter is still sub-judice. The Postal department also started a departmental proceeding against appellant no. 1 and after proceedings, appellant no. 1 was found guilty and has been dismissed from the service. In connection with the said criminal case, respondent no. 1 was directed by a letter from higher authority dated 29.06.2015 not to make payment of any KVP, RD, NSC etc. to the appellants without prior permission. However, the said order was withdrawn by a subsequent letter dated 25.07.2016 and in reality there was no order of stoppage of payment in respect of the investment made by the appellants or his family members at post office.
However, the respondents took a plea that as the criminal cases are pending against the appellants/complainants without permission of the Ld. Court such payment, as sought for by the appellants may cause interference with the matter. However, respondents never refused to make payment to the appellants in respect of their NSC.
In this backdrop, a question centres around as to whether in absence of any repudiation by the respondents, a complaint is time-barred under Section 24A of the Act?
The fact remains that the respondents while contesting the case before the Ld. District Forum have admitted that the complainants are 'consumer' in accordance with provisions of the Act and also admitted that claims with regard to NSC in question which has never been repudiated by the respondents. In an order dated 08.12.2015 in RP/4486/2014 [Dharmawati Kuwar - vs. - Brach Manager, LICI & Anr.] the Hon'ble National Commission has observed-
"As far as the issue of limitation is concerned, since, the claim never came to be repudiated by the respondent corporation, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation".
In another decision reported in (2013) 1 CPR 299 [Indian Railway Finance Corporation Ltd. - vs. - Trustee of British Citizens] this Commission has observed that when no repudiation has been made, the cause of action is a continuous one.
The Ld. District Forum should have held that the claim of the appellants/complainants with regard to some NSC has not been repudiated by the respondents and therefore, the application under Section 24A of the Act was redundant and the complaint should not have been rejected merely on the ground of delay as provided in Section 24A of the Act.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest. However, there will be no order as to costs.
The impugned order is hereby set aside and the complaint be restored to its original file and number.
The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 15.11.2018 and the Ld. District Forum is requested to proceed with the case in accordance with law.
It is made clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case and I have disposed of the appeal simply on the ground that the complaint is not barred by limitation keeping all other points open for consideration and the Ld. District Forum should not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Commission in disposing of the appeal.
The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan for information.
[HON'BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY] PRESIDING MEMBER