Back
BEFOR THE 8TATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRES8AL
cOMMISsION : ORISSA, CUTTACK
No./ of 2004
Adreo/e
tHeVnatterof
c.D Appeal No.
An applicatlon under Sectlon 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996
AND
In the matter of
An applcatlon challenging the Order daled 23.2.04 In C.D. Case No. 49 of
2002 passed by ihe learned Dist. Consumer Dlspute Redressal forum,
Jagatsinghpur
AND
In the matter of
1. The Chiof Post Master General, Ortssa Circle, Bhubaneswar
2. The Superintendent of Post Oflces, Cuttack South Dlvision, Cuttack- 1
3. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Oftlces, Jagatsinghpur
4. The Branch Postmastor, Madhusudanpursasan, Jagalsinghpur
(Opp. pelies in the lorum beldw)
.APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Sri Nabakishore Sahoo
S/o Late Mani Sahoo
Vill: Kendal, Po: Madhusudanpursasan
Dist: Jagatsinghpur
(Complalinant belore the court below)
..RESPONDENTS
SI. No.
Date of
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
C.D.A.No.749/2004
Is
IS 11-21
None appears on behalf of either of the
parties. However writter notes of submission
of the appellant have beeh filed which is taken
into consideration to assess the case of the
appellant.
2. This is a matter of 2004. Therefore
am inclined to dispose of the matter on merit.
3. This is an appeall filed u/s 15 of the
erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (hereinafter called the Act). Parties to this
appeal shall be referred to with reference to
their respective status þefore the District
Forum.
4. The case of the |complainant in nut
shell
is
that
the complainant
has
paid
Rs.20,000/- on 4.10.1997 for depositing the
sarme iT vtadtruSutanpursasan pOst oiiice a
Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
St. No
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Orde
Order
branch post office of Jagatsinghpur H.O.
But
when the fixed deposit ampunt was sought for
withdrawal by the complainant the money has
not been given to him. So showing deficiency
of service on the part of O.P. the complaint
was filed.
5. Per contra the 0.P. filed written
version stating that the complainant has
produced the counterfoil SB-103 wherein
Rs.20,000/- has been noted showing name of
the complainant
on 16,10.1995 but the
counterfoil does not bear the date & stamp of
Madhusudanpusasan Bran¢h post office. On
the other hand the counterfoil filed by the
complainant has no stamp of the same post
OGP
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
office. Therefore it is stated that they have not
received the amount. Sd he denied the entire
allegations.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned
Dist. Forum passed the following order;
Xxx
XXX
XXX
From the pleading of both the parties, it
is prima-facie
revealed that it is disputed
regarding misappropriation of amount from
the account of the complaint. Moreover, the
O.P claries that the matter has been pending
with the police authorities for investigation.
Thus, such type of dispute is not coming under
the Consumer Protection Act which involves
misappropriation of each from the account.
Hence, the instant dispute is not maintainable
which is dismissed withput prejudice to the
right of the complainand to prefer the claim
before the appropriate Civil Court, if so
desired. No cost.
Xxx
XXX
XXX
Office nole as to action (if any).
taken on Order
SI No
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
7. In the appeal memo it is specifically
stated that learned Dist. Forum has committed
error in law by not going through the written
version of the appellant.
Moreover the
procedure for receipt of| the money has not
been followed in this |case.
When the
acknowledgement of thel money is far from
proof, the allegation of the complainant is
false.
Learned Dist. Forum ought to have
considered all these facts but based on no
evidence and cryptic order
was passed.
Therefore it is submitted to set aside the
