Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 15 (CHH)

MALAY ROY CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-01-06

R.S.AWASTHI, V.K.AGARWAL, VEENA MISRA

body2007
ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri V.K. Agarwal, President: 1. This appeal, under section 15, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (the' Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 04.04.2006 in complaint No. 07/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Raigarh (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) dismissing the appellant's complaint. 2. Indisputably, P. Roy Choudhary had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- at Post Office Haldibadi, District-Koriya under the 'Monthly Income Scheme' (hereinafter called 'MIS' for short). The said amount was deposited on 08.04.199 I, and date of maturity was 08.04.1997 i.e. after about 6 years. It is also not in dispute that on maturity amount Rs.50,000/- was payable with 10% bonus. It is further not in dispute that the said depositor namely P. Roy Choudhary died, before the aforementioned maturity date. 3. The complainant averred that he was the nominee of the said deposit, under the Scheme. Accordingly, the complainant requested for payment of the amount on the death of the depositor. Though, the postmaster of Ambikapur by letter dated 27.06.1992 issued sanction order for payment of the amount, but the respondent No.2 did not make the payment, raising objections about the nomination of the complainant which entitled him to receive the payment. Hence; the complainant preferred the complaint before the District Forum. 4. Complaint was resisted by the opposite parties/respondents. According to them there was irregularity in nomination of the complainant. It was stated that there were several discrepancies in the nomination and therefore, payment was not made. After the complainant was declared as nominee by the Civil Court, he was paid the amount. It was averred that there was no deficiency in service by the opposite parties respondents. 5. The District Forum in the impugned order held that the nomination under the scheme was doubtful, hence the payment was delayed. It was also averred that since the amount has been paid after the judgment by Civil Judge Class-II on 26.02.02, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any other relief. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused. 7. As noted earlier the complainant's claims to be the nominee of depositor P. Roy Choudhary. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard. Record perused. 7. As noted earlier the complainant's claims to be the nominee of depositor P. Roy Choudhary. It appears that the complainant Malay Roy Choudhary was intimated by the Superintendent of Post Office, Ambikapur that nomination is found to be improper and therefore he can not be paid the amount, unless full enquiry was made. It may be noticed that the letter to that effect stated the following discrepancies, found regarding the nomination: (i) Nomination was recorded on 04.02.92 i.e. after the death of depositor P. Roy Choudhary on 28.09.91. (ii) The name of the nominee is not mentioned in the proper column in the ledger card, retained by Post Office. (iii) The name of the nominee was recorded in the register of Saving Bank A/c and not in the register of Monthly Income Scheme. (iv) The form for nomination, submitted by the depositor, is not available on record of Post Office. (v) There were some discrepancies in the name of nominee as the name mentioned in register Malay Kumar Roy Choudhary while in the sanction order the name is mentioned as Malay Roy Choudhary. (vi) Entry in the register shows that the depositor has been mentioned in the column of depositor and the depositor's name has been mentioned in the column of the nominee. 8. It may be noticed that the above discrepancies were due to omission and default of the Post Office in which the amount was deposited. If the entries were not made properly or if the form was not kept carefully in the relevant file; the default was of the concerned official of the Post Office. For such omission and defaults, rights of the complainant appellant could not get prejudiced. It may further be mentioned that in the letter of the respondent No.2 it has also been stated that nomination was recorded on 04.02.92 while account was opened on 08.01.91. However, who was responsible for belated recording of nomination, has not been specified in the said letter. Documents in that connection have not been placed on record by the respondent. It cannot be said or inferred that the delay as above was on account of any default on the part of the complainant. 9. However, who was responsible for belated recording of nomination, has not been specified in the said letter. Documents in that connection have not been placed on record by the respondent. It cannot be said or inferred that the delay as above was on account of any default on the part of the complainant. 9. It may further be noticed that the complainant had filed a suit for declaration in the court of Civil Judge Class-II Manendragarh in which judgment was passed on 26.02.2002, declaring the complainant to be entitled to receive the amount. Though, it is true that the complainant/ appellant in stead of filing Civil suit should have proceeded to obtain succession certificate, if it was so desired by the respondents. However be that as it may, it is clear that claim of the complainant was not settled which, in fact, were on grounds of defaults or omissions of the respondents themselves. The delay in payment therefore, would clearly amount to deficiency in service by the respondents. 10. It is now not in dispute that the amount of Rs.88,500/- was paid to the complainant appellant on 26.02.2002 i.e. after decision of the Civil suit declaring him to be a successor of depositor P. Roy Choudhary. 11. The question that now arises for consideration is as to what compensation deserves to be granted? 12. No specific rules have been placed before us regarding belated payment of amount to depositor, under the MIS. The delay in payment was of about 5 years. The total amount payable was Rs.88,500/-. In the circumstances, we consider it just and proper to award interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.88,500/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred) from due date of payment i.e. 08.04.97 to 26.02.2002 on which amount was actually paid, by the opposite parties I respondents to the complainant I appellant. The respondents shall also pay to the complainant cost of this litigation including that of the complaint as well as of this appeal which is quantified at Rs.2,000/- (Two Thousand) only. Appeal Allowed.