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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.