Before the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) At Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 

BANGALORE – 560001

(Appellate Jurisdiction) Memorandum of Appeal No. C.C.No84/2009 Of The District consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Gulbarga.


1. Name : Kalavati W/O Late Sidramayya Math Full Address: h.No 5-1-80,RAJEEVNAGAR Village/Tehsil/District: AFZALPUR District :Gulbarga,

2. Name : Mallikarjun.S.Math Full Address: h.No 5-1-80,RAJEEVNAGAR Village/Tehsil/District: AFZALPUR District :Gulbarga,585301
Mb no:9019710210/09026305491. Email Id:

APPELLANTS /COMPLAINANTS (Complainant before District Forum)


BANGALORE – 560001 3. as per rules of the Consumer Protection Rules of  Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.No 08470-283030 RESPONDENTS Gulbarga (Opposite Parties before District Forum) (By Smt. 2.C.  Versus The Head Post Master. This appeal is directed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.AFZALPUR. Gulbarga ) In application No. Post Office. At:Post:TQ:AFZALPUR. This appeal is filed within the time limit provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. Vidyarani Bhat. 1986 against the order of the District forum Gulbarga( The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.C. 1986. are legal representative of deceased Sidramayya Math.1 being the wife and the complainant No. who was retired Vice Principal had opened MIS (monthly Income Scheme)account No.G. D. No.P. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder The complainant No. Gulbarga passed on 22-02-2010 received by the appellant on ---------------------------. Dist:Gulbarga Ph.84/2009 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.1030 for   .2 being the son of late Sidramayya Math.) The humble appeal of Appellant(s) above named most respectfully showed: 1.

5% for 2.that i.D Account and in respect of MIS 1030 (Monthly income scheme)is account is concerned .So They are constrained to file this complaint claiming compensation of Rs. for getting the bonus. The OP rejected the claim by sending a letter dated 02‐03‐2007.600/-) and due to non availability of fund. but they failed to verify the same and insisted for obtaining succession certificate.81. otherwise they will loose the bonus for premature closure of the said account. Because of negligence of the OP their claim was postponed for a period of 15 months. they incurred the personal loan with higher interest . Further it is the case of the complainants that.e Principal amount Rs 2.000/. around December 2007 OP agreed to check the nominee name in original application form.000/.at the rate of 8. asking them to obtain succession certificate from Court of Law.40.600 .OP advised the complainants to wait for maturity of the said account. Further it is the case of the complaint Monthly income from may (death) to maturity JAN2007 i.1. they suffered heavy financial loss. which was matured on 05-01-2007 and he had been getting monthly interest of Rs 2200/. But it is a case of the complainants that. Account and R. When they found the name of complainant No 1. Accordingly they applied their claim for the first two accounts SB &RD and since OP convinced them to wait till maturity of MIS account which I would mature on 1-5-2007. Further it is the case of the complaints that . as it was going to mature within six months.400 /. Then the OP asked them to submit their claim for SB. in order to get 10%bonus on the said account.Plus 10% bonus 24.  amount of 2.e Rs 17. Though the complainants asked OP to verify the original application form. when they submitted their First claim on 22‐01‐2007  immediately  after  its  maturity. but the concerned officer has not mentioned the name of nominee in the passbook.with OP on 05-01-2001 and the maturity period of the said account was for six years.000/.000/. which was payable to complainants. so there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP . late Sidramayya math while opening the said had mentioned his wife i.e . Complainant No 1 as a nominee for the said account.from OP. as result.5% for the above said amount and on maturity he was eligible to get 10% bonus.   . late Sidramayya math also opened SB account and Rd account along with the above said account with OP. They waited till maturity of the said account.600 for a period of15 months was 9800. As result of which the said amount in the MIS account was withheld and since there was no other source of income. But unfortunately the said account holder Sidramayya math died on 2305-2006 and immediately the complainants informed this fact to the OP on 20-7-2006 by producing the death certificate issued by competent authority. finally they settled their account on maturity by paying Rs 2.who is wife of deceased Sidramayya math had been shown as nominee.91. As result of which they suffered huge financial loss by loosing the interest of 10% on the amount of maturity (Rs 2. Thereafter they asked the complaints to resubmit their claim and accordingly on 06-12-2007when they resubmitted their claim.50. on the ground that. and simply interest at rate of 4. the complainants were incurred personal loans with higher interest. there is no nominee.81.40.

The OP paid the interest at rate of 3. Just admits the deficiency of service and orders the symbolic compensation of Rs 10. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. therefore respectfully prayed that your lord may be graciously pleased to the appeal and set aside/modify the order the District forum against. The Compensation amount is lesser than actual interest lost on Rs 2. g. It is.  4.5% for Rs.000/-(Rs. Two lakh eighty one thousand six hundred rupees only) for a period of 15 months.000 was Rs 2200 for a month. the Actual loss of monthly income at the rate of existing interests at that time was 10% and interest for cumulative monthly interest.600 for period of 15 months. If complainant kept the same amount as fixed deposited at existing rate of 10% with any bank quarterly accrued interest of 10% complainant would have got more than Rs 40. c. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Gulbarga taken decision without measuring its financial and non financial impact of deficiency on complainants. old age widow with unsettled sons.600 /-) Rs. The OP admits the deficiency of services but will not take responsibilities of direct and indirect losses to complainants d. Gulbarga. opinion without any basis for compensation. Without measuring the financial burden aroused due to deficiency of service and its result on mental health of illiterate. The complainant feels the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. entirely dependent family.000.000.81. The monthly interest for MIS 1030 with interest rate of 8. Considering the impact of direct and indirect financial impacts of deficiency of service and its impact on mental health of illiterate   . Gulbarga. f. The appellants/complainants. b. 40. The grounds on which appeal is preferred are stated here under: a.5% of Rs 9.800 for principal amount of Rs 2. 81. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Ordered OP to pay Rs 10. agree the deficiency in the service but failed to identity the direct and indirect financial and mental pressure on complainants aroused purely due impact of deficiency of service from application of first settlement 20-01-2007 to final settlement11-03-2008. e.Ten thousand) to the he complainants to wards the deficiency in the service and also pay Rs 2000(Two thousand) towards the cost of proceedings. 2. without any mistake of complainants. Gulbarga.

  and old age widow. therefore. PRAYER: It is. respectfully prayed that your Lordship may be graciously pleased to allow the appeal and set aside/modify the order of the District Forum appealed against. 5. The appellant has not preferred any other appeal against the order impugned herein. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PLACE: -----------------DATE: -----------------. with family of dependent non incomed sons for period of 15 months. Affidavit.SIGNATURE (To be signed by the Appellant and Authorized Representative/Associate).List of enclosures: Certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against. 7.   . 6.