Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.      Here is an appeal 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 before the District Forum.

3.   The unfolded story of the case of the complainant is that the complainant has opened a Term Deposit account bearing No. 5628  on 14.5.2012 for an amount of Rs.70,000/- and also opened another SB account bearing No.592321 with OP No.1 having balance of Rs.11,020/- at  Kundeswar  Post Office. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that OP No.1 intentionally entered lesser amount at the time of entry to the ledger concerned.

Later OP No.1 allegedly admitted on 9.9.2013 that the amount reflected in SB account and Term Deposit account is wrong. Complainant alleged that the Postmaster  received the Term Deposit passbook S.B. passbook for enquiry on 19.9.2013 but when passbooks were returned he was surprised to see that the balance amount in the Term Deposit account has been maintained as Rs.7,000/- instead of  Rs.70,000/- and balance amount in the S.B. account has been maintained as Rs.800/- instead of Rs.11,020/-. Thereafter, complainant made grievance before the OPs but it was futile. So, the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version admitting that the complainant has opened SB account on 14.5.2012 and

after withdrawal of Rs.1,500/- from that account, he has left balance of Rs.11,020/- in his SB account. The concerned Branch Postmaster one Shri Rath allegedly has destroyed the deposit and withdrawal vouchers for the period from 1.7.2009 to 25.7.2013.  It is also averred in the written version that due to mishandling of the account the balance in the SB account  was reflected as Rs.11,020/-.

5.      OPs further alleged that in Term Deposit account of the complainant Rs.7,000/- was only deposited for opening of Term Deposit account but not Rs.70,000/-.The concerned Branch Postmaster Shri Rath issued passbook having tampered balance of Rs.70,000/-. Thus, due to mishandling of the documents and the cash by then  

Branch Postmaster Shri Rath, the complainant has no scope  to know that Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.800/- instead of Rs.11,020/- has been maintained in his passbook. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs except the fact that the concerned  Branch Postmaster Shri Rath has misappropriated the money of the complainant and others.

6.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx  xxx  xxx

            The dispute is allowed against t5he opposite parties on contest. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.81,020/- (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.11,020/-) to the complainant along with up to date interest as per postal rules and opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost litigations to the complaint within one month from

the date of order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to proceed against opposite parties as per law.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by the OPs. According to him, the complainant failed to show any deposit of Rs.70,000/- in his Term Deposit account but the concerned Branch Postmaster - OP No.1  maintained the lesser amount by tampering the ledger. Learned District Forum ought to have asked the complainant to produce the receipt of Rs.70,000/- while to lead evidence. Besides, the learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that the OPs for the misappropriation of the fund and documents has already

started criminal proceeding against the concerned  Branch Postmaster. Therefore, the entire impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint was in possession of the necessary receipt granted by OP No.1 showing that Term Deposit amount has been deposited. But now he is not in possession of the same because of old age. He further submitted that all other records show that Rs.70,000/- has been deposited in the Term Deposit account. Apart from this, he submitted that for the latches of OP No.1 complainant should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal should be  dismissed  by  confirming  the

impugned order.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has opened one Term Deposit account and another SB account at Kundeswar  Branch Post Office. It is also an admitted fact that the then Branch Postmaster Shri Rath was prosecuted by the Department for misappropriation of necessary funds. It is true that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the instant case, it is clear to show that after allegation received from the account holders, OP No.2 has started inquiry.

11.    In  the  aforesaid  impugned  order,  the   learned

District Forum has not whispered a single word whether the complainant has produced the necessary money receipt towards deposit of Rs.70,000/- for opening Term Deposit account by the complainant. Moreover, the aforesaid impugned order only relies on the agreement dated 9.9.2013 but necessary documents filed by the OPs like ledger, seizure list and the panchanama of the then  Branch Postmaster has not been discussed at all. The reason for not producing the receipt by the complainant has not also been discussed in the aforesaid impugned order. The first and foremost mistake pointed out by the OPs that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service of OPs as it is well settled in law by catena  decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the

part of the OPs. On the other hand, learned District Forum has not discussed the materials filed by both parties. The appreciation of the material evidence has been lacking in the impugned order. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that the  matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing  after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence, if any further.

12.    In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned District Forum with a direction to hear both parties again by allowing them to adduce evidence, if any dispose of the case within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that while deciding

the case, appropriate evidence must be dealt with. Therefore, the learned District Forum should keep in mind  the silent feature of judicial adjudication and pass speaking order within the aforesaid period. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 8.9.2021 to receive further instruction from it. Thereafter, the learned District Forum shall do well hear both parties afresh and pass speaking order by keeping in view of manner of disposal as delineated above.  It is made clear that this Commission has not made any observation about merit of the case.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.