Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

These Appeals, being nos. A/45/2015, A/46/2015, A/47/2015, A/48/2015, A/49/2015, A/50/2015, A/52/2015, A/53/2015, A/54/2015, A/55/2015, A/58/2015, A/59/2015, A/60/2015, A/61/2015, A/62/2015, A/63/2015, and A/64/2015 have been preferred by Sub-Postmaster, Deuradanga Sub-Post Office against the orders dated 14-10-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in C.C. Nos. 76/2014, 77/2014, 78/2014, 79/2014, 80/2014, 81/2014, 82/2014, 83/2014, 84/2014, 85/2014, 86/2014, 87/2014, 88/2014, 89/2014, 90/2014, 91/2014 and 92/2014, respectively.  Since the bone of contention of all these cases are of identical nature, for the purpose of brevity of discussion and also in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions, all these Appeals are taken up collectively.

Brief facts of all these cases are that the Complainants opened their respective SB accounts at the OP No. 3 Post Office and all of them handed over the concerned passbooks to the then Sub-Post Master of the OP No. 3 sub-Post Office.  Later on, when they went to withdraw money from their respective accounts, allegedly, the OP No. 3 refused to oblige them.  Therefore, a mass petition was filed before the Superintendent of Post, Burdwan claiming refund of deposited sum.  In support of their claims, supporting documents were attached together with the said petition.  However, since no fruitful result emerged, out of disguise, they moved the Ld. District Forum for redressal of their grievance.

Common plea of the OP No. 1 against all these petitions was that while fraud was detected in the transaction of the Post Office concerned and the Branch Post Master committed suicide, there was every possibility of dubious claims. Therefore, it was of paramount importance that the bona fide of such claims was established beyond all reasonable doubt.  The moment the matter was reported to the Postal Department, necessary departmental proceedings ensued and it was in progress.  It was further stated that the Postal Department had no such intention to deprive any genuine account-holder.  Therefore, aggrieved account-holders were urged to come forward and lend their helping hands by furnishing relevant documents together with the claim forms in the prescribed format.  This OP alleged that although in the mass petition submitted by the Petitioners/Complainants, they stated to have furnished relevant documents, but actually, no such document was attached with the said mass petition which was general in nature. Thus, questioning the motive of the Complainants for bypassing the grievance redressal mechanism being set up by the Postal Department and moving the Ld. District Forum instead, this OP prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

It appears from the records that the Respondents, in order to establish their respective cases, submitted photocopies of documents like, deposit slips, pass books, Receipts for Depositor’s Passbook (SB-28).  Be it mentioned here that all these documents contained postal stamps and signature of the concerned Postal officials. Thus, it seems to us that, by submitting such documents the Respondents successfully made out their prima facie case against the Appellants.

On the other hand, since the Appellants disputed authenticity/acceptability of said documents, in terms of Sec. 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was their responsibility to prove the same as fake ones, which they did not do.  May be that only photocopies of the documents in questions were submitted by the Respondent.  However, while the documents in question contained date stamp impression of the concerned Post Office and signature of the concerned Postal Officials and finally, given that the same were hand-written, if the Appellants had due wherewithal, it was not at all a tough ask for them to examine the genuinity of the same by sending the same to experts in the respective fields during pendency of the complaint cases before the Ld. District Forum itself.

We feel that notwithstanding the disputed deposits had not been accounted for in Government records or wrong account no. mentioned in some of the said documents, the same being the handiwork of concerned Sub-Post Master of the Appellants, the Appellants cannot deny make good the loss suffered by bona fide claimants accepting vicarious liability for such mala fide act of the then Sub-Post Master.    

It is though alleged by the Appellants that the Respondents did not submit authentic documents together with their mass petition contrary to such statement in the said petition, it seems, the same was duly received by the Appellants putting an official stamp therein.  It is unbelievable that the concerned recipient blindly accepted the same by putting his signature therein without verifying the letter carefully. 

Regarding the grievance of the Appellants that the Respondents did not avail of the grievance disposal mechanism being put in place by the Postal Department, as it appears, a mass petition was filed before the Appellant No. 3 by the aggrieved depositors whereby they furnished relevant supporting documents.  There is nothing to show that the Appellants initiated due enquiry in this regard in a purposeful manner.

The allegation of defalcation of huge sum of money by the then Sub-Post Master of Deuradanga Sub-Post Office came to surface in the year 2013.  However, the Appellants have not filed even a solitary piece of document to show that they progressed even an inch with their so-called departmental proceedings after 4 long years or they refunded money to even a single depositor.  While this remains the state of affairs of the Postal Department, hardly any person of reasonable prudence would repose his faith in the wisdom of our Postal Department.  It is futile, therefore, to find fault with the Respondents in this regard.

That apart, as observed hereinabove, while the Respondents filed necessary documents in support of their claims, the veracity of the same, more precisely, the realness of handwriting/signature/postal stamp could easily be ascertained during pendency of the complaint cases before the Ld. District Forum.  However, for the reasons best known to the Appellant, they did not tread such path.

On going through the impugned orders, we find that the Ld. District Forum quite elaborately dealt with each and every relevant issue in a very prudent manner to which we are fully in agreement.  Therefore, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same in any manner save and except directing the Respondents to furnish original copies of supporting documents before the Appellants in order to get their claim settled.

The Appeals, thus, succeed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeals be and the same are allowed on contest in part.  The impugned orders are hereby affirmed with the string that Respondents shall furnish either the Pass Book or Receipt for Depositor’s Passbook (SB-28) in original to any of the Appellants within 30 days hence and on receipt of such document(s), the Appellants shall settle the claims within 45 days of receipt of the same.