Skip to main content

Consumer panel lenient, Thane GPO gets relief

The Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission recently reduced the fine slapped on Thane's General Post Office (GPO) by the Thane district consumer redressal forum. The forum had found the GPO guilty of using excess time unnecessarily to complete the procedure of an account transfer.

The state commission in its order, however, upheld the district forum's order of holding the postal department guilty of failing to act promptly on the transfer of account. But levying a fine of Rs25,000 on the department would unnecessary increase the burden on the tax payers. Thus, the state commission reduced the fine amount from Rs25,000 to Rs2,500.

In 2010, Sudarshan Maini, a Thane resident, had approached the forum and filed a complaint against the GPO for its negligent service. "Maini had a Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) account with the post office in Khajurao, Madhya Pradesh, in which he had deposited an amount of Rs25,000. Accordingly, he was getting a monthly income of Rs166 on the deposited amount. On October 13, 2009, when the account was about to reach its maturity, Maini had approached the department and requested it to transfer the account from Khajurao to Thane branch by April 5, 2010. However, instead of transferring the account immediately, the department took six months and did it on October 4. Aggrieved by this negligent behaviour, the complainant approached the district forum and filed a complaint," reads the state commission's order copy.

The department in its reply to the district forum accepted the delay and claimed that appropriate action was already taken in the case. After going through the evidence, the district forum found the postal department guilty and thus imposed a fine of Rs25,000 on it.

To challenge the high compensation amount slapped by the district forum, the postal department moved the state commission. After going through the evidence and facts the commission held: "There can be no doubt that the postal department have been negligent in transferring the account promptly. All the same, India Post is a department of Government of India and saddling it with hefty compensation of Rs25,000 would unnecessary result in burden being passed on to the tax payers."

The commission further came to a conclusion that Maini could have received a sum of Rs166 per month, had his account continued till the amount in deposit was actually paid to him. "In this view, we would reduce the compensation ordered from Rs25,000 to Rs2,500 towards the delay in transferring the account," the commission held.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-consumer-panel-lenient-thane-gpo-gets-relief-2011832

Comment: But why cannot the culprit be made to pay out of their own pocket ? Even the reduced fine is coming out of the tax payers pocket and won't affect the culprits.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even