APPELLANTS
1. Department of Post

represented by Supdt. of Post Offices

Birbhum Division

P.O. & P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum.

2. Br. Post Master, Ulkunda

Branch Post Office,

P.S. Mayureswar

Dist. Birbhum.

3. Sub-Post Master, Sainthia

P.O. Sainthia

Dist. Birbhum.

4. S.D.I.(P) Sainthia,

P.O. Sainthia

Dist. Birbhum.



RESPONDENTS



Md. Nasiruddin Sk.

S/o. Late Maselim Sk.

Vill. Duna, P.O. Ulkunda,

P.S. Mayureswar

Dist. Birbhum.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Ms. R.Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. K.P.Malik, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 2.6.09 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum, Suri, in C.F. Case No. BIR/46/O/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part on contest thereby directing the Postal Department to handover to the complainant two numbers of MIS passbooks for Rs. 1,50,000/- each dated 2.12.04 and 3.1.05 and to pay interest in respect of those two MIS accounts from February, 2006 till maturity along with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 500/-.

The complainant’s case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant opened two numbers of MIS accounts on 2.12.04 and 3.1.05 respectively for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- each through Ulkunda Branch Post Office at Sainthia Sub Post Office. The complainant withdrew interest in respect of those MIS accounts regularly upto January, 2006. Thereafter the payment was stopped at the instance of postal authority/Appellant. On query the complainant was made to understand that as he had withdrawn the MIS money prematurely, the payment of interest was stopped. But the actual state of affairs was contrary to the standpoint adopted by the Ops. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such acts of Ops/Appellants the petition of complaint was filed for proper redressal.

The OPs/Appellants contested the case by filing written version thereby denying all the material averments of the complaint contending inter alia that the complainant did open one MIS account at Santhia Sub-Post office on 3.1.05 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and the same was prematurely closed at the instance of the complainant and the complainant never opened any second MIS account on 2.12.04 as claimed by the complainant. As there was no deficiency at the instance of the Appellant authority, the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that one Nirmal Kumar Biswas, who happens to be a postal employee, namely the Post Master of another sub-post office, acted as a middleman of the complainant in all the transactions which took place between the complainant/Respondent and the Appellant authority and that the plea of defalcation of money at the instance of the postal authority as regards opening the MIS accounts to the tune of Rs. 3.00 lacs, which, according to the postal authority, exceeded the permissible limit was not acceptable by the Ld. District Forum as the rule and law in this respect was not in favour of the postal authority and the Ops/Appellants having admitted the actual state of affairs as claimed by the complainant allowed the petition of complaint in part on contest in the manner as discussed above.

The moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.

Case laws referred to on behalf of the Appellants :-

1. AIR 1933 Privy Council 87

2. AIR 1933 Privy Council 91

3. AIR 1957 Rajasthan 189

4. AIR 1957 Rajasthan 203

5. AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1697

6. AIR 1954 Supreme Court 355


DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Postal authority that in this case the Respondent/Complainant having failed to substantiate his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence the Ld. District Forum was not justified in allowing the petition of complaint to the detriment to the interest of the postal authority which is a Central Government institution. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in the absence of any cogent evidence in support of the complainant/Respondent that a second MIS account was opened on 2.12.04 it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to upheld the claim of the complainant. While elaborating his submissions in this matter Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has also urged before us that in this case the Ld. District Forum has totally ignored the legal principle inasmuch as when a postal employee was involved in defalcation of money, for which a legal proceeding is pending, there was no point on part of the Ld. District Forum to entertain the petition of complaint and allow the same. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate has also urged before us that the impugned judgement being contrary to the actual state of affairs and the Ld. District Forum having considered the case of the complainant beyond the statutory limit, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants/Postal authority and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Respondent/Complainant put forward a case to the effect that he having opened two MIS accounts with the postal authority the said authority subsequently stopped payment of interest and on enquiry the complainant was made to understand that the complainant having prematurely closed one of his MIS accounts he was not entitled to any benefit of interest at all. In this regard, the Ops/Postal authority have taken a plea to the effect that there was no existence and/or opening of second MIS account as claimed by the complainant. Besides that, the complainant having himself prematurely closed the MIS account there was no deficiency of service at the instance of postal authority and as such, question of granting any relief to the complainant does not arise. We have also taken note of the fact that in this case the Appellants have taken a legal plea to the effect that when a criminal proceeding is pending against a particular employee of the postal authority in respect of the present matter, Ld. District Forum was not justified in entertaining the petition of complaint. We also find that in this regard the standpoint taken by Ld. District Forum appears to be just and proper. As the criminal litigation whatever has been instituted against a particular postal employee was much after the institution of the consumer complaint, question of want of jurisdiction does not arise in this case. On scrutiny of the materials on record we also taken note of the fact that the complainant/Respondent who happens to be a rustic villager was exploited at the instance of a postal employee who was successful in deceiving the complainant in this regard, for which the complainant should not suffer and in remedy thereof the Consumer Protection Act very much comes into play and the Ld. District Forum having taken proper view in this regard the impugned judgement should be upheld. We have duly considered different decisions cited on behalf of the Appellants and find that the facts and circumstances of those decisions being quite different than that of the present Appeal the principles laid down in those decisions are not applicable to the instant Appeal and as such, we are unable to accept the proposition put forward on behalf of the Appellants in this regard. Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Ld. District Forum, which stand affirmed. In the result, the Appeal fails.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.

APPELLANTS



1. The Superintendent of Post Offices

Birbhum Division

P.O. & P.S. Suri,

Birbhum.

2. The Post Master

Ulkunda Post Office

P.O. Ulkunda

P.S. Mayureswar

Birbhum.

3. The Post Master

Santhia Bazar Post Office

P.O. & P.S. Santhia

Birbhum.

4. The Post Master

R.K.Tala Post Office

Santhia

P.O. & P.S. Santhia

Birbhum.



RESPONDENTS



1. Md. Abdul Hai

S/o Late Montaj Sk.

2. Achhiya Bibi

Wife of Md. Abdul Hai

Both are residing at Ulkunda, P.O. Mayureswar

Birbhum.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Ms. Ratna Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. Krishnapada Malik, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 15.6.09 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum (Suri) in C.F. Case No. CC/47/O/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part on contest thereby directing the Ops/Postal authorities to repay Rs. 3,90,000/- to the complainants/Respondents and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest @ 10% p.a. in case of non-compliance of the directions.

The Complainants/Respondents’ case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the Complainant No. 1 and his, the Complainant No. 2, opened two separate Savings Bank Account with the Postal Department and they deposited in all Rs. 1,95,000/- in each of the S.B.Accounts after observing all the legal formalities. Subsequently, when the complainants intended to withdraw some money from their Savings Bank Account, the concerned Post Master informed them that they had already withdrawn the entire money from their S.B.Accounts. Being surprised the complainants requested and made several correspondences with the postal authorities, but without any avail and ultimately the complainants had to file the petition of complaint for proper redressal.

The Appellants/Ops contested the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the complainants never deposited such a huge amount in the S.B.Accounts belonging to them and as they had withdrawn substantial amount of money, question of repayment of such a huge sum as claimed by the complainants does not arise at all and prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainants are consumers. They did deposit Rs. 1,95,000/- in two separate S.B.Accounts with the postal authorities and that the postal authorities had no bonafide answer as to how the amount so deposited in the postal S.B.Account by the complainants were withdrawn and as the documentary evidence clearly showed deposit of that huge amount of money in the S.B.Accounts as claimed by the complainants, the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint in part as discussed above.

The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS

At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants/Postal authorities that the Complainants/Respondents did not prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt and as such, it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to allow the petition of complaint in favour of the complainants and to the detriment to the interest of the Appellants, which is a Central Government institution. In this connection, it is also submitted on behalf of the postal authorities/Appellants that the postal authorities having already taken action against an erring employee of the Postal Department, the Ld. District Forum was not justified in entertaining the petition of complaint and disposed it of in favour of the complainants. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants have urged before us that the onus was on the complainants, who alleged misappropriation of fund from their S.B.Accounts and that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate this aspect of the case and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is liable to be set aside.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellants and have gone through the materials on record including the pleadings of the parties and the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainants/Respondents, who were common villagers, opened two separate postal Savings Bank Accounts with the postal authorities and deposited substantial amount of cash in the respective S.B.Accounts. However, to the utter surprise of the complainants when they attempted to withdraw money from their respective S.B.Accounts, it was informed by the postal authorities that the entire amount had been withdrawn by them, though according to the complainants, that was not the actual state of affairs. The postal authorities/Appellants, on the other hand, has taken up the plea to the effect that it was the complainants who never deposited such a huge amount of money as claimed by them and that they having withdrawn substantial amount from their respective S.B.Accounts, question of entertaining such vague and wild allegation does not arise at all and prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint. Now, from the materials on record we find that it has become an admitted position that the complainants did deposit Rs. 1,95,000/- each in their respective S.B.Accounts and in this regard the receipts duly issued in their favour by the postal authorities stand as a very good piece of evidence in support of the complainants/ Respondents’ case. From the impugned judgement we take note of the fact that the agent who helped the complainants in opening and depositing cash in the respective S.B.Accounts was none less than a postal employee, specifically a Post Master of a particular sub-post office. We have considered the plea taken on behalf of the Appellants to the effect that when an employee of the postal authorities was responsible for the mischief done and more so, when criminal action has been instituted against that erring employee, there is no point in holding the institution/authority responsible for the act so done by the employee concerned. Unfortunately, we are unable to accept such proposition inasmuch as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and in this case we find that the complainants/Respondents are consumers in its true sense and if that be the position, the plea taken by the postal authorities does not hold much water at all and is not acceptable to us. We have also considered the plea taken by the Appellants/Postal authorities to the effect that a criminal action has already been taken by the Postal Department against that erring employee and as such, there was no scope of entertaining the consumer complaint by the Ld. District Forum. But keeping in mind of the admitted fact that the consumer complaint was filed prior to the institution of the criminal litigation at the instance of the postal authorities and that provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act being totally in support of the complainants’ case, we find no merit in the present Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Thus, we do not like to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which accordingly stands affirmed.

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands affirmed.

To
The Superintendent of post offices
Birbhum Division
Suri, Birbhum


Respected Sir/Madam

I posted letter registered post with A/D from Santiniketan post office having RLAD No. A 4108 & A 4600 on 22.03.2011 & 02.05.2011 but the A/D card has yet not received.
I, therefore, requested to you that kindly inform me whether the letter has been properly delivered to the addressee or not.
Thanking you
Sincerely yours’

Dr. RUHI DAS
Qtr. 12, Ratanpalli, Santiniketan-731235
Birbhum, West-Bengal
Mb.No. 9232400112
E-mail: rdas1192@gmail.com