P.Gnanasoundari vs POST MASTER, HEAD POST OFFICE

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 9th day of November, 1998 in O.P. No. 56/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli. The appellant is the complainant while the respondent is the opposite party.

THE complainant Gnanasoundari, it is said, purchased Kisan Vikas Patra for Rs. 10,000/- on 7.3.1995 from the opposite party Post Master, Head Post Office, Sri Rangam. THE said Kisan Vikas Patra got matured on 7.3.1998 and the maturity value of the said Patra is Rs. 14,200/-. It appears, the complainant''s daughter by name Helen Mary instituted a suit before the II Additional Sub-Judge, Trichy in O.S. No. 663/97 impleading the opposite party Post Master as one of the defendants in the suit. The suit was one for partition. She also filed in that suit an Interlocutory Application No. 646/97 praying for issue of an order of interim injunction restraining the opposite party Post Master from disbursing the maturity value of the Kisan Vikas Patra to the complainant. No interim order appears to have been passed in the said I.A. Consequently, the said Helen Mary suppressing this sort of details also instituted a further suit before the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy in O.S. No. 763/97 for the same relief as she had prayed for in the other suit. She also filed an I.A. No. 663/97 praying for interim injunction restraining the opposite party Post Master from disbursing the maturity value of Kisan Vikas Patra in favour of the complainant mother. No interim order, it is said, was granted.

The opposite party, despite refusal of the injunction as prayed for by the said Helen Mary and the opposite party being a party to the suit having knowledge of the same, ought to have disbursed the maturity value of the Kisan Vikas Patra to the complainant mother. The fact that the opposite party refused to disburse the amount even subsequent to the dismissal of the I.A. by the Civil Court, the complainant would allege, is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. She therefore filed the complaint before the Forum below, praying for a direction to the opposite party Post Master to return the maturity value of the Kisan Vikas Patra, that is to say, Rs. 14,200/- with 18% interest on and from 7.3.1998 besides payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and anguish suffered by the non-disbursement of the amount by the opposite party.

THE opposite party filed objections mainly contending that unless and until the complainant was in a position to get an order in her favour directing the opposite party to disburse the said amount, it is not permissible for him to refund the amount of Kisan Vikas Patra and he was always ready and willing to disburse the amount once the order is procured from the Civil Court and in such circumstances, to say that there was deficiency in service on his part cannot at all be countenanced. In such state of affairs, he would say that it is but proper for the Forum below to dismiss the complaint. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record and also after hearing the projection of hues of views by the respective parties through their Counsel, ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs giving rise to the present action by the complainant.

SOON after receipt of the process, the opposite party Post Master entered appearance through Counsel of his choice viz., learned Counsel Mr. K. Sambasivam. When the matter is listed for hearing today the said learned Counsel is not present in the Court and the opposite party Post Master is also not present. The fact that the said learned Counsel as well as the opposite party is not present in the Court cannot deter us from disposing of the appeal on merits, of course after hearing learned Counsel Ms. K.P. Kiran Rao appearing for the complainant/appellant and on perusal of the records. That is what exactly we have done in this case. There is no question of doubt whatever that the complainant invested an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in Kisan Vikas Patra with the opposite party on 7.3.1995 and the said Patra got matured on 7.3.1998 and the maturity amount was to the tune of Rs. 14,200/-. Normally the moment the Kisan Vikas Patra gets matured, the maturity amount has to be disbursed to the person in whose name the said Patra stands in the absence of any prohibitory order from any Forum whatever in accordance with the laws of this country. In the case on hand, one Helen Mary, daughter of the complainant knocked at the doors of the Civil Court in procuring a prohibitory order of injunction restraining the Post Master opposite party from disbursing the amount to her mother Gnanasoundari the complainant in whose name the Kisan Vikas Patra stands, more than once and she met with a colossal failure in the attempts she made. It is not as if the opposite party Post Master is not a party to the proceedings before the Civil Court. The opposite party Post Master having had knowledge of the proceedings before the Civil Court, it is but proper for him to have disbursed the amount to the complainant without any demur whatever. The stand taken by the opposite party Post Master appears to be that unless and until the complainant procures a favourable order in her favour, in the sense of an order or direction to the opposite party to make disbursement of the amount under the Kisan Vikas Patra to her he cannot make the disbursement. This sort of a stand taken by the Post Master is not reasonable or fair on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. As already indicated, once there is no prohibitory order issued by the competent Forum preventing him from disbursing the amount due under the Kisan Vikas Patra, it is but the duty of the Post Master to make disbursement of the amount due under the Kisan Vikas Patra in whose name the said Patra stands. If this is not done and he is waiting for orders of the Civil Court, then, there is a possibility of the proceedings before the Civil Court getting protracted for pretty long and if the amount invested in the Kisan Vikas Patra is not disbursed till such time, a colossal loss is to ensue to the complainant, in the sense of her not getting any interest for the amount lying idle in the Post Office under the Kisan Vikas Patra. In such circumstances, we are definitely of the view that the act of the Post Master in refusing to disburse the amount under the Kisan Vikas Patra to the complainant despite his having the knowledge that the prohibitory order sought for before the competent Forum had met with colossal failure, is definitely deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Post Master. Once we conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Post Master, it goes without saying that the opposite party is not only to be directed to disburse the amount due under the Kisan Vikas Patra to the complainant but also he must be directed to make a suitable amend for the delay he had caused in disbursing the amount by way of ordering interest on the maturity amount of the Kisan Vikas Patra. The complainant prayed for interest on the said amount @ 18% per annum. We feel that the claim of interest made in the complaint quantified @ 18% p.a. is rather on the higher side. We, therefore, order award of interest @ 12% on the maturity value of the Kisan Vikas Patra viz., Rs. 14,200/- on and from its date of maturity i.e., 7.3.1998.

THE complainant also prayed for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and anguish. Since we have awarded interest, we do not think it would be proper for us to award compensation for mental agony and anguish as prayed for. We, therefore, reject the claim of Rs. 5,000/- on account of the mental agony and anguish as has been prayed for by the complainant in her complaint. THE appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

IN fine, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Forum below in entirety. The appeal is allowed directing the opposite party to disburse Rs. 14,200/- the maturity value of the Kisan Vikas Patra with 12% interest on and from 7.3.1998 the date of maturity of the said Patra till realisation. IN case there is failure on the part of the opposite party to effectuate the payment as above, it is very well open to the complainant to resort to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in other respects stands dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.