Guntur District Commission Holds Superintendent Of Post Office Liable For Refusing Withdrawal Of Amount From Savings Bank And Registration Of Complaint

Brief Facts:

Mr G.L.N. Prasad (“Complainant”) approached a Sub-Post Office in Siripudi village of Pittalavanipalem Mandal to withdraw Rs. 1,000/- from his savings account which he was refused by the Post Master. Subsequently, when the Complainant sought to file a complaint through registered post, he was informed that the Siripudi office did not offer registration services. Later, the Post Master at Pittalavanipalem informed the Complainant that due to the inactivity of his savings account, he was no longer allowed to withdraw the money from his account. Additionally, the Post Master stated that the registered post facility wasn't available at the instant post office and directed the Complainant to file it with the nearest post office. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”).

In response, the Post Master admitted that the Complainant held a savings account with a balance of Rs. 94,000/-. He contended that on September 30, 2022, the Complainant attempted to withdraw Rs. 1,000/- and sought registered post services from the Siripudi post office. However, he claimed that according to postal authority rules and guidelines, if there are no transactions (withdrawals or deposits) in a savings account for three continuous financial years, the account becomes automatically inactive. Thus, he stated that the Complainant's account had become inactive on July 23, 2021. Following the submission of necessary documents by the Complainant, he stated that the account was revived. Subsequently, as no transactions were conducted before March 31, 2022, the account became inactive again.

Regarding the registered post facility at the Siripudi sub post-office, he contended that the service was available through a RICT machine, which generates a receipt for registered posts. However, on the specific date, the RICT machine was non-functional due to technical issues. Consequently, the Complainant was informed that the registered post would be sent to the nearest post office, i.e., sub post office. He maintained that there was no deficiency of service on his part as the Complainant refused this alternative arrangement.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission, while referring to the argument of postal officials that the account was inactive due to no transactions, noted that after two months of filing of the consumer complaint, the Complainant was allowed to withdraw the amount without submitting any fresh revival letter or KYC documentation. Therefore, the District Commission held the postal officials liable for deficiency in service for not allowing the Complainant, who was a senior citizen, to withdraw Rs. 1,000/- on September 30, 2022, and wrongfully stating that the bank account was inactive due to no transaction.

Moving to the second contention of the Complainant that he was not allowed to send his grievance through registered post. The District Commission noted that according to the rules when the RICT machine is not working in the post office, the office should receive the registered post by issuing a manual receipt. In the instant case, the District Commission held that the postal officials failed to accept the registered post and instead directed the Complainant to approach another post office to register the Complaint. The District Commission emphasized that it was the duty of postal officials to ensure that manually registered post facilities are available in all post offices, and the failure to provide such a facility amounted to a deficiency of service.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the postal officials to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation cost.

Case Title: GLN Prasad vs Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali

Case No.: CC/29/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: In Person

Advocate for the Respondent: B. Chandersekhar

Click Here To Read/Download The Order