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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...