UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Union of India representing the Postal Authorities. The challenge is to the order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated December 14, 1994 whereby a direction was given to the appellants to pay to the complainant Tejinder Singh interest on the maturity value of the Indira Vikas Patras as purchased by the complainant, at the rate of 10% for the period the payment of which was delayed alongwith Rs.500/- as costs. Tejinder Singh had purchased Indira Vikas Patras of the value of Rs.20,000/- (of Rs.500/- each ). On December 4, 1994, the Indira Vikas Patras matured for payment. On December 5, 1994, he approached the Post Office, Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar, opposite party 2 for encashment of the Patras. He was informed that the cash amount was not available and the same was to be arranged from the General Post Office and the complainant was advised to come on the following day. On December 6, 1994, the complainant again approached the aforesaid Post Office however, payment was not made instead illegal gratification was claimed, although the amount had been received from the General Post Office. He did not pay the illegal gratification and subsequently moved the District Forum for the relief. The stand taken up by the opposite parties was that on December 5, 1994, the complainant did approach the Post Office but the payment could not be made as the Post Office was to arrange funds from the General Post Office. The complainant was advised to come on the following day. On December 6, 1994, the complainant approached the Post Office after working hours, i. e. at 2.30 p. m. Hence payment could not be made to him. He was advised to come on the following day. Thereafter the complainant did not go and directly approached the District Forum. Thus deficiency in rendering service was denied. On the affidavits produced by the parties, impugned order was passed.

(2.) The representative of the appellant argued that there as no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Post Office as after the funds were arranged from the General Post Office, the complainant did not approach the Post Office within working hours. The Post Office was justified in declining to make payment since accounts had been closed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties as the amount of matured Indira Vikas Patras was not paid on the first date, i. e. December 5, 1994 when the complainant approached the Post Office. The deficiency continued as on the following day also, the amount was not paid and illegal gratification was asked for. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that there was deficiency in rendering service as the Post Office was unable to pay the matured value of the Indira Vikas Patras to the complainant on December 5, 1994 for want of availability of funds.

(3.) With respect to incident of December 6, 1994, contrary versions have been put forth by the parties. Thus, it is necessary to consider the evidence produced on this point. The assertions made in the pleadings have already been noticed above. The complainant did not produce his evidence on affidavit or any other documents. The proceedings of the District Forum indicate that several opportunities were given to him to produce his evidence. On the other hand, Joginder Pal Satyawan produced his affidavit on behalf of the Post Office, Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar. The stand taken up in the written statement was reiterated in this affidavit that the complainant had appeared after working hours on December 6, 1994 when the accounts had been closed and hence he was advised to come on the following day. Since no evidence was produced by the complainant, the version submitted by the Post Office was to be accepted, there being no other reason to discard the same.