CHIEF POST MASTER GENEREL, KERALA Vs. SATHYAVRUTHAN K N, KERALA
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-3-3
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 29,2010

Chief Post Master Generel, Kerala Appellant
VERSUS
Sathyavruthan K N, Kerala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in CC:331/06 on the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint in CC:331/06 was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in their failure to pay interest on the deposited amount of Rs.5,00,000/ - by the complainant under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version denying the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. They contended that the 2 accounts under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme was opened irregularly and against the provisions of the notification dated:27/10/2004 issued by Ministry of Finance. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in deducting the amount paid by way of interest to the complainant from the principal amount when the said accounts were closed on 25/07/2006. Thereby the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P4 documents were also marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D6 documents were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:18th September 2008 directing the 2nd opposite party and his subordinates to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/ - towards compensation. It was further directed to pay the said amount to the complainant with liberty to realize the same from the persons who were responsible for improper opening of the accounts with Numbers:60000054 on 20/6/2005 and account No:60000057 on 12/7/2005. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred.
(3.) WE heard both sides. The learned authorized representative of the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster Dargamittah HPO, Nellore Vs. Raja Prameeelamma (MS), 1998 9 SCC 706 and argued for the position that there was no contract entered into between Government of India and the complainant and that the Government cannot made answerable for the loss suffered by the complainant. It is also submitted that there was negligence on the part of the respondent/complainant in opening an irregular and improper account under Senior Citizens Savings Scheme. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. Both sides have also submitted argument notes in support of their oral submissions. The points that arise for consideration are: - 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties in permitting the respondent/complainant to invest a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ - under the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme? 2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20, 000/ - by way of compensation to the complainant?;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.