Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

FA/469/2009. Case: 1. Mr. Murari Das S/o Late Muneswar Das, 2. Mrs. Sovabati Das W/o Mr. Murari Das Vs 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, 2. The Sub-Post Master, 3. The Manager, State Bank of India, 4. Mr. Raghunath Saha. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case Number:FA/469/2009
Party Name:1. Mr. Murari Das S/o Late Muneswar Das, 2. Mrs. Sovabati Das W/o Mr. Murari Das Vs 1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, 2. The Sub-Post Master, 3. The Manager, State Bank of India, 4. Mr. Raghunath Saha
Counsel:For the Appellant: Mr. M.Chatterjee and For the Respondent: Mr. P.R.Bakshi, Mr. G.C.Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
Judges:S. Majumder and Mr. S. Coari, Members
Issue:Consumer law
Judgement Date:October 27, 2010
Court:West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

S. Majumder, Member

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 9.11.09 passed by Burdwan District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in D.F. Case No. 8/2008 wherein the Ld. District Forum has rejected the petition of complaint on contest.

The Complainants/Appellants'' case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant, Mr. Murari Das, on his superannuation from Durgapur Steel Plant received retirement benefits to the tune of Rs. 10,68,842/-. The complainant, Mr. Murari Das, on 8.2.06 deposited the amount so received on his superannuation with the Sub-Post Office at Durgapur with a request to open an MIS Scheme for Rs. 6,00,000/-, which, according to the complainant, ensured interest @ 10% towards maturity bonus and that in this way the complainant would be entitled to Rs. 60,000/- towards maturity bonus on and from 13.2.06. According to the complainants'' case, though the money was deposited by the OP/Post Office, but he was made to understand that the complainants could not be entitled to maturity bonus @ 10%. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such intention of the OPs/Postal authority the complainant instituted the petition of complaint for redressal.

The Ops/Postal authorities contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the cheque so deposited by the complainant with the postal authority could not be encashed within the statutory period due to some practical difficulties, due to which the complainants were not entitled to avail of the benefit of maturity bonus @ 10% on the MIS amount so deposited and that in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the postal authorities the complaint case was liable to be rejected.

Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that there was no deficiency of service at the instance of the postal authorities as alleged by the complainants and that in the absence of any cogent and bonafide materials in support of the complainants'' case the complainants were not entitled to any relief and accordingly rejected the petition of complaint.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such finding of the Ld. District Forum the complainants have preferred the present Appeal.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing...

To continue reading

Request your trial