NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 1578 OF 2012
(From the Order dated 31.10.2011 in Appeal No. 397/2010 of
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
1. Sub Post Master Petitioners
Post Office, Ladhewali
Jalandhar-144007
2. Sr. Supdt. of Posts
Head Post Office Building
Jalandhar
Versus
Santosh Kaur Respondent
W/o Late Parminder Singh
VPO Ladhewali
Jalandhar
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Chadha, Advocate with Mr. Avtar Singh Pahuja, Sr. Supdt. of Post Office, Jalandhar
Pronounced on : 16th July, 2012
ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
For the reasons stated in the application and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay of 35 days in filing this revision petition is condoned.
2. The two petitioners herein were OPs-1 & 2 respectively before the District Forum and respondent is the original complainant in this case. The respondent Mrs. Santosh Kaur filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners pleading that her husband Sh. Parminder Singh deposited Rs. 1 lac under ‘Time Deposit Scheme’ for one year vide account No.30257 on 25.1.2008 with petitioner No.1 and the maturity date was 25.1.2009. The husband of the respondent died on 9.3.2008 and the intimation regarding his death was given to petitioner No.1 verbally when petitioner No.1 advised the respondent to take refund of the amount on maturity with full interest. On maturity date, i.e., 25.1.2009, the respondent visited the sub-post office to take refund of her husband’s money but petitioner No.1 asked the respondent to submit the death certificate which was supplied. Petitioner No.1 also asked her to bring some claim form from petitioner No.2 which was also brought and completed. Again, she was asked by petitioner No.1 to submit consent letter of her son Harpreet Singh and daughter ParamjitKaur for making the said payment which was also submitted on 26.2.2009 when petitioner No.1 assured her that the refund of the amount will be made within a few days. Later, petitioner No.1 kept on postponing the payment and asking the respondent to submit some more documents and even advising to get the payment without interest by submitting a request to that effect in writing so that the payment could be expedited. This was also done but still the payment was not received by the respondent. Ultimately, vide his letter dated 29.4.2009, the respondent was instructed by the petitioners to produce a ‘Succession Certificate’ from a competent court. Feeling harassed by the delays and wrong advice on the part of the petitioners, the respondent filed the complaint in question before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service and making the following claims:-
(i)
|
Principal amount deposited by respondent’s husband
|
Rs.1,00,000/-
|
(ii)
|
Interest upto the date of maturity
|
Rs.6,400/-
|
(iii)
|
Interest after maturity dated @ 12%
|
Rs.4,000/-
|
(iv)
|
Litigation expenses
|
Rs.3,000/-
|
(v)
|
Mental tension and harassment
|
Rs.80,000/-
|
Total
|
Rs.1,93,400/-
| |
3. In their reply to the complaint, the petitioners admitted the opening of the account for one year and also that the respondent had preferred her claim in SB/84 through Sub-Post Master which was received in the office of petitioner No.2, i.e., Sr. Supdt. of Post Office on 21.4.2009. It was further submitted that the respondent had been asked to produce ‘Succession Certificate’ from the competent court of law in accordance with the rules because the amount of the Term Deposit after adding interest exceeded Rs.1 lac. Denying any negligence or deficiency in service on their part, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. On appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence placed before it by the parties, the District Forum observed that the insistence for production of the ‘Succession Certificate’ by the petitioners in the absence of any dispute among the legal heirs was not justified and amounted to deficiency in service and allowed the complaint of the respondent directing the petitioners to release the payment of Rs.1 lac with permissible interest from the date of maturity with cost of Rs.3,000/-. In case of default of payment within one month, 9% interest was also awarded. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum vide its order dated 22.1.2010, the petitioners challenged the same in appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (‘State Commission’ for short) which vide its impugned order dated 31.10.2011 disposed of the appeal with the modification to the extent that the petitioners shall pay the Term Deposit amount of Rs.1 lac deposited by the deceased Parminder Singh along with interest permissible from the date of deposit till the date of maturity in equal shares, i.e., one-third share each to respondentSantosh Kaur, her daughter Paramjit Kaur and son Harpreet Singh along with costs of litigation of Rs.3,000/-. The State Commission also directed the petitioners to pay interest on the principal amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization. It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioners have filed the present revision petition before the National Commission.
5. We have heard Mr. Amit Chadha, Advocate for the petitioners and perused the record. The main contention on behalf of the petitioners is that since the ‘Succession Certificate’ which was required as per Rule 13 of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981 was not supplied, the payment could not be made to the respondent and hence no deficiency in service could be attributed to the petitioners in the matter. Learned counsel further submitted that now the ‘Succession Certificate’ issued by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Jalndhar in favour of the respondent and two other heirs of the deceased account holder was available, the disbursement of the amount of deposit along with interest as per rules upto the date of maturity could be made to them in accordance with the ‘Succession Certificate’. However, since the action taken by the petitioners was in accordance with the rules, it would not be appropriate to hold them liable for any deficiency of service in the matter. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order may be suitably modified to delete finding in respect of deficiency of service and consequently direction regarding payment of interest on the principal amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till realization be set aside so that the amount of deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- could be released in equal shares of one-third to each of the three claimants as per the ‘Succession Certificate’ along with interest till the date of maturity as per rules.
6. We have carefully considered the limited request of the counsel for the petitioners in the light of his submissions and the facts of this case. The point for consideration here is not the non-submission of ‘Succession Certificate’ because of which the payment could not be released but why such a requirement was not indicated and conveyed duly by the petitioners to the respondent right in the first instance when she visited the sub-post office. According to her complaint, she started visiting the sub-post office soon after the death of her husband and even before the maturity of the Term Deposit and in every visit she was asked to comply with new requirements and furnish fresh documents. There is no specific denial to her visits and the averments made by her in the complaint. In response to a specific question from us, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the advice regarding submission of the ‘Succession Certificate’ could not be given earlier by the petitioners since the Sub Post Master was not aware of the correct position in this regard. Well, if the Sub Post Master who is in charge of the sub-post office which accepts such term deposits himself is not sure of the rule position and takes months together to furnish the correct advice, we do not see any reason as to why the petitioners should not be held liable for deficiency in service. Fortunately, they have been let off by only payment of interest @ 9% from the date of maturity till actual release of the amount and cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/- whereas the facts and circumstances of this case are such in which even separate compensation could have been awarded for mental agony and harassment caused by the wrong advice and misguidance rendered by the Sub Post Master and members of his staff. We, therefore, do not find any substance whatsoever in the revision petition and dismiss the same in limine.
..…………Sd/-………..………
(J.M. MALIK, J)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………Sd/-……….……………
(SURESH CHANDRA)
MEMBER
SS/
