SATISH KRISHNAJI JOSHI vs GUTTAL POST OFFICE

-AN orphan who was adopted and brought up by a couple and in whose favour the couple deposited money in the joint name of the orphan and the adopted mother in Post Office and gifted to him a house has not only challenged the lawful action of the Post Office in paying the amount to his adopted mother on maturity but also, it is stated, has sold the house gifted to him to a third party and thrown out his adopted mother to street and made her destitute.

THE parties in this Order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum for the sake of convenience. This appeal is by the complainant challenging the Orders dated 15. 6. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Haveri, in Complaint No. 15/2006. The President of the District Forum has dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost, whereas the two members of the District Forum have dismissed the complaint with cost of Rs. 10,000 payable by the complainant to opposite party (for short, "o. P. ") No. 3.

The complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging "deficiency in Service" on the part of O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 (postal authorities) in paying the matured amount to O. P. 3 which was deposited in the joint name of O. P. 3 and the complainant under Monthly Income Scheme (for short, "mis" ). From the pleadings it is seen that there were two Joint Accounts of Rs. 1,50,000 each, one in the name of O. P. 3 and the complainant and another in the name of husband of O. P. 3 and the complainant. So far as the deposit made in the name of husband of O. P. 3 and the complainant is concerned, the said amount has been withdrawn by the complainant after the maturity with other benefits after the death of husband of O. P. 3 claiming that he is the sole survivor. As far as the amount deposited in the name of O. P. 3 and the complainant is concerned, O. Ps. 1 and 2 have paid the amount to the O. P. 3 on maturity on the request made by her. The case of the complainant is that the said amount has been paid to O. P. 3 in spite of his objections.

THE defence of O. Ps. 1 and 2 is that the amount deposited in the name of O. P. 3 and the complainant was classified as ''joint B scheme''. As per Rule 20 of the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume-I, if the amount deposited is classified as joint B scheme, the amount may be paid to one of the depositors. In the instant case, it is not disputed that O. P. 3 is one of the depositors and, therefore, according to the said Rule O. Ps. 1 and 2 are justified in paying the amount to O. P. 3. Since the amount paid is in accordance with the Rules regulating payment, we find that there is no "deficiency in Service" on the part of O. Ps. 1 and 2 in paying the amount to O. P. 3. If at all the complainant has got any share in the amount, the appropriate remedy for the complainant is to approach the Civil Court claiming his share and not by way of filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act in the absence of "deficiency in Service" on the part of O. Ps. 1 and 2. Therefore, the two members of the District Forum have rightly dismissed the complaint imposing cost of Rs. 10,000 on the complainant. We are told that the complainant was on orphan and he has been brought up by O. P. 3 and her husband. Further, for the livelihood of the complainant in the event of death of O. P. 3 and her husband, the couple had deposited the amount in the name of the complainant and O. P. 3 under MIS. We are also told that the complainant had also got a gift deed executed by O. P. 3 in his favour in respect of a residential house belonging to O. P. 3 and thereafter he has sold the same to a third person. In support of this fact the Counsel for O. P. 3 has produced a xerox copy of the registered gift deed and the sale deed. Now in view of selling of the house, O. P. 3 is virtually on streets without a roof over her head. The complainant being an orphan and brought up by O. P. 3 and her husband ought not to have resorted to this litigation. Therefore, in our view this appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 in addition to the cost already imposed by the two Membes of the District Forum.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) The complainant is directed to pay cost of Rs. 10,000 to O. P. 3 in addition to the cost of Rs. 10,000 already imposed by the two Members of the District Forum.

Appeal dismissed.