Delhi

New Delhi

CC/346/2017

Baldev Singh Bisht - Complainant(s)

Versus

Department of India Post - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.346/2017

 

 

Baldev Singh Bisht,

S/o Sheri Umrao Singh,

Presently R/o C/o Tribhawan Singh,

WZ-639, Naraina, New Delhi,

Permanently R/o Village Sinala,

PO Dabri, District Pauri, Garhwal,

Uttrakhand.

 

Vs.

 

1. Director,

          Department of India Post,

          Goal Dal Khana, GPO,

           New Delhi-110001.

 

 

2. Dy. Post Master(HSG-1),

          GPO, New Delhi-110001.

 

 

H.M.VYAS, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

The present complaint was initially filed before Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area in the year 2009 and the same has been transferred by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 03/07/2017.

The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP as two cheques issued by the OP to the complainant being nominee of one Sh. Harbans Singh have not been allowed to be credited/encashed/withdrawn in his favour. It is stated that the complainant is the nominee of his friend late Sh. Harbans Singh who opened 06 MIS accounts with the OPs Post Office each for Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2005.

It is stated further that initially one Sh. Rajdeep Singh was the nominee of Sh. Harbans Singh but later on complainant was appointed as nominee in October 2007. After nominating the complainant as nominee a savings account in the joint name of the Harbans Singh and the complainant  was opened on 25/04/2007. The complainant has also filed Medical Certificate dated 12/07/2007 showing indoor treatment from 06/07/2007 beside medical/death certificate dated 25/10/2007. Sh. Harbans Singh was hospitalized on 23/10/2007 and expired on 25/10/2007 in Ganga Ram Hospital. The last rites/pyre were performed by the complainant being the friend of Sh. Harbans Singh. The information about the demise of Sh. Harbans was given to OP with request for release of the amount of his friend’s accounts balance in his favour. Two cheques bearing no. 568645 and 568646 each of Rs. 1,50,000/- were issued to the complainant. One cheque was deposited in the savings joint account no. 872020 but the OPs did not allow its encashment in favour of the complainant. Complainant was stopped from withdrawing the money from his above said joint account. The complainant being lawful nominee of Sh. Harbans Singh is entitled for receipt of the amount of MIS opened by said Sh. Harbans Singh deceased.  The other cheque was also not allowed to be credited in the said joint account. The OP stopped encashment of the cheques in favor of the complainant. The written statement/version was filed by the OPs resisting the complaint.

OP filed Written Statement/Version stating that due to connivance of one of OPs employee namely Sh. V.S. Lakra, the change in nomination has been carried out and so the OP stopped the payments. Even inquiry and investigation proved the involvement of Sh. Lakra, who brought on record forged signature of Sh. Harbans Singh. It is stated that in the account opening form, Sh. Harban Singh has afixed “thumb impression” due to paralytic  conditions, but the application form for change of nomination bears the signature of Sh. Harbans Singh. Due to such dubious circumstances and also that the earlier nominee has placed counterclaim in respect of MIS account of Sh. Harbans Singh. The complainant was not allowed to withdraw the balance amount of the MIS accounts of  Sh. Harbans Singh. Some documents including the enquiry report conducted against Sh. V.S. Lakra, decision of reviewing authority and the copy of orders passed by CAT have been placed on record by the OP to which complainant did not object.

The complainant has filed rejoinder as well as evidence in support of his claim.  The OP also filed evidence supporting its version. Both the parties have filed written argument and also addressed oral arguments.

 It argued on behalf of the complainant that the complainant is lawful nominee also as per the records of the OP and stopping the release of payment against the account of deceased Sh. Harban Singh in the favour of the complainant/Nominee is deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for allowing the complaint. It is argued that the nomination form was duly signed by Sh. Harban Singh and approved by Asstt. Post Master, on 18/10/2007 as he recovered from the bedridden ailment.

 It is not disputed that six MIS account were opened for Rs. 50,000/- each and the saving account was opened on 25/04/2007 jointly in the name of Sh. Harban Singh with complainant. and the complainant after change of the nomination. Sh. Harban Singh was Hospitalized on 23/10/2007 and expired on 25/10/2007 in  Ganga RamHospital as natural death.

It is argued on behalf of the OP that the complainant is not a Consumer and due to involvement of one Sh. V.S. Lakra, all this dispute has arisen due to change of nominee to which Sh. V.S. Lakra was instrumental. It is stated that the complainant after receipt of two cheques each of Rs. 01,50,000/- from the OP had given a cheque for Rs.01,50,000/- to Sh. V.S. Lakra, which is not only indicative but substantiates the involvement of Sh. V.S. Lakra in such mischievous act. The said cheque given to Sh. Lakra by the complainant was also not allowed to be encashed in his favour. Further the employee was awarded penalty of compulsory retirement by the reviewing authority vide order no. F2/41/ 2008-2009 dated 06/08/2010. The OA no. 796 of 2011 was filed by Sh. Lakra against the orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of on 28/10/2016. On technical grounds, the Impugned order dated 06/08/2010 was held illegal and violative of principle of Natural justice and was set aside granting the consequential relief to Sh. V.K. Lakra.

We have considered the material placed before us and the rival arguments of both the  parties with relevant provisions of law.

As per the rival submissions made by the parties it is clear that the entire issue revolves around the genuineness of documents concerning change of nomination by Sh. Harbans Singh in favour of the complainant in place of Sh. Raj Deep Singh @ Rajan. The Dy. Manager Sh. Rama Kant Roy (NDMC, Freedom Fighter Home, BKS Marg, New Delhi) sent a letter addressed to Director, G.P.O. New Delhi with request not to make payment of the dues of Sh. Harbans Sigh. The inquiry against the Asstt. Superintendent, Post, Sh. P.V. Lingam, was also ordered, who approved the nomination changed. Further another claimant who was the nominee earlier of the deceased has also  raised his claim. From these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that as the question of disputed facts is apparent, as such requires examination/ cross examination and evaluation of the evidence for which the proper Forum for adjudication is only the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and cannot be decided in summary proceedings by this Forum, in view of judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of S.K. Lakhotia Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported as 1994(1)CPR 43, O. Ranjini Vs. Syndicate Bank, II (2013) CPJ654(NC). We therefore, hold accordingly. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed in the light of above discussions. Liberty is, however, granted to the complainant to approach the competent Court as per law.

Copy of the order may be sent to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. 

Announced in open Forum on   __________________. 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 ARUN KUMAR ARYA

                                                 (PRESIDENT)

 

 

             (H M VYAS)                                                             (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                MEMBER                                                                    MEMBER