Haryana

Karnal

207/2013

Safal Joon S/o Jatinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Post Office, Senior Superintendent Of General Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. N.K. Zak

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.207 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 30.4.2013

                                                               Date of decision:25.4.2017

 

Safal Joon (minor) son of Shri Jatinder, resident of village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal, minor through his grand-father Shri Tara Chand, as his guardian and next friend.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Head Post Office, through its Senior Superintendent of General Post Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

2. Postmaster, Post Office, Salwan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

3. Shiv Kumar son of Shri Khazan Singh, Gram Dak Sewak, Branch Post Master, village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                                                                ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

Ms. Veena Rani….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                  

Present:-     Shri N.K. Zak  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ashok Gupta Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2.

                   Shri Virender Bahal Advocate for opposite party no.3.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had three accounts bearing nos.1116097, 1116578 and 1115661 with opposite party no.2. He deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- each, as FDRs (Fixed Deposit Receipts), which have already matured on due dates. He approached opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.3 for withdrawal of the amounts of the said FDRs. When he requested the opposite party no.3 for withdrawal of the amount, the opposite party no.3 made excuse for not releasing the amount and also threatened with dire consequences if he demanded the money from the opposite parties. Thereafter, on 21.11.2011 he approached the Incharge of Sub Post Office, village Salwan and narrated the incident to him, but to no avail. He made representations to higher authorities of the opposite parties and even to Ministry of State for Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, but despite that FDR amount was not released to him. Opposite party no.3 was working for opposite party no.2 and as per the instructions/directions, rules and regulations of opposite party no.1. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 filed joint written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant opened  Savings Bank Account no.1116097 on 16.3.2009 at Kurlan Branch with a sum of Rs.40000/- and had closed the said account with the receipt of maturity amount of Rs.42560/- on 18.5.2010,  by putting his signature over the withdrawal form. The complainant had also opened another time deposit one year account no.1116578 on 13.5.2010 at Kurlan for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and had closed the said account with the receipt of maturity amount of Rs.40000/- on 2.12.2010 by putting his signature over the withdrawal form.  The complainant had also opened another time deposit one year account bearing no.1115661 on 29.1.2008 with a sum of Rs.40,000/- and had closed the said account with the receipt of maturity amount of Rs.42560/- on 5.2.2009 by putting his signature over the withdrawal form. Moreover, there was no scheme of FDR in the post office savings bank scheme and as such the claim of the complainant is bogus and based upon presumption, conjecture and surmises. A case bearing First Information Report no.38 dated 18.1.2012 was registered against opposite party no.3 in Police Station Assandh, on the complaint of Sada Nand son of Shri Ram Dutt of village Karlan and the same is still under investigation. The complaint of the complainant was received in the office of the opposite parties and the matter was investigated departmentally. The claim of the complainant was found bogus therefore, the same was rejected in view of the grounds that a sum of Rs.42560/- was withdrawn from the account no.1116097 on 18.5.2010 by the depositor by putting his signature on the withdrawal form and account was closed on 18.5.2010, that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was withdrawn from the account no.1116578 on 2.12.2010 by the depositor by putting his signature on the withdrawal form and account was closed on 2.12.2010 and the amount Rs.42560/- was withdrawn from the account no.1115661 on 5.2.2009 by the depositor by putting his signature on the withdrawal form and account was closed on 5.2.2009. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite party no.3 filed separate written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi; that the complainant has not approached this form with clean hands; that the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and that the complaint is an abuse of process of law.

                   On merits, it has been averred that the complainant opened an account no.1116097 by depositing Rs.40000/-. After deposit, opposite party no.3 issued a pay-in-slip to the complainant for the deposited amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- which was duly signed by the complainant/depositor and he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.42560/- on 18.5.2010 after signed the withdrawal form in that regard. The other account was also opened by the complainant, vide no.1116578 on 13.5.2010 with the amount of Rs.40,000/- and the pay in slip for the same was also given to the complainant and signed by the complainant/ depositor while getting the pass book of the post office and he had withdrawn the  amount of Rs.40,000/- on 2.12.2010 by putting his signature on the withdrawal form. The other account no.1115661 dated 29.1.2008 was opened with Rs.40000/-. The amount of Rs.42560/- after maturity was withdrawn, after putting his signature on the withdrawal form. Infact, the complainant manipulated the entries of the copies of the post office given to him. There was no verification and signature by the opposite party no.3 as well other by the other competent authority in the said copies. The complainant misrepresented the record in the post office and the local police involved opposite party no.3 in the false and frivolous case. The claim was found bogus by the competent authority and the same was rejected. In fact, the complainant altered the initial amount deposited by adding one or more zeros in the pass book of post office, which was in his custody and such entry was not verified or signed by the opposite party no.3 or other competent authority. The complainant even could not produce the pay-in-slips regarding alleged amounts deposited by him. Therefore, complainant is not entitled to any relief. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C28 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Shiv Kumar Ex.OP3/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant has alleged that he had deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/-each as FDRs in his three accounts bearing nos. 1116097, 1116578 and 1115661 with opposite party no.2. When he wanted to withdraw the said amounts after maturity, he was threatened by opposite party no.3 and his amounts were not released by opposite parties no.1 and 2 despite various representations. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant deposited Rs.40,000/- in  his account no. 1116097, he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.42560/-/- after maturity on 18.5.2010 by putting his signature on the withdrawal form. The complainant also deposited Rs.40,000/- in account no.1116578 and withdrew the maturity amount of Rs.42560/-  on 2.12.2010  by putting his signature  and closed the said account. The complainant also withdrew the maturity amount of Rs.42560/- in his account no.1115661 after its maturity and closed the account on 5.2.2009.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant had deposited Rs.40,000/- each in his three accounts. The factum of depositing the amounts has been admitted by the opposite parties, but the amounts were not released to the complainant after maturity and his signatures on the withdrawal form were forged, the amounts were misappropriated. It has further been contended that opposite party no.3 had misappropriated the amounts of other persons also of village Kurlan and made false entries in their pass books, without depositing their amounts in the main post office. First Information Report no.38 dated 18.1.2012 was registered against opposite party no.3 in Police Station Assandh on the basis of the complaint made by Sadanand son of Ram Dutt. Another First Information Report no.485 dated 12.10.2012  was also got registered against opposite party no.3 in Police Station Assandh by Ramphal son of Ram Chander. Senior Superintendent of Post Office also wrote letter to Station House Officer Police Station, Assandh regarding mis-appropriation of public money relating to the accounts of the complainant, Karma and Vridhi, by opposite party no.3 and First Information Report no.192 dated 27.5.2012 was registered against opposite party no.3 in Police Station Assandh on the basis of the said letter. Even the Senior Superintendent of Post Office Karnal wrote letter dated 23.3.2012 to Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, for recovery an amount of Rs.48,20,363.60 from opposite party no.3 under section 4 of the Public Account Act of 1850. It has been further canvassed that the facts and circumstances and the evidence are sufficient to prove that opposite party no.3 received the amounts of Rs.40,000/-in each account from the complainant for depositing the same as FDRs in her aforesaid accounts and made entries in the pass books, the amounts were not released to him after maturity and the same were misappropriated by forging his signatures on withdrawal form.  It has lastly been argued that opposite party no.3 was employee of the Postal Department, therefore, the post office is accountable for his mis-conduct and the complainant is entitled to recover the amount from the post office. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Versus Bagwan Vishnoo Mahadeshwar 1(2004) CPJ 193, wherein deposits were regularly paid to the Agent, under Mini Deposit Scheme. Entries were made in the pass book evidencing payment. Agent Committed fraud and did not deposit the amount in bank. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the bank was accountable for the misconduct of the Agent.

9.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 contended that the amounts deposited by the complainant in accounts no.1116097, 1116578 and 1115661 were withdrawn by the complainant after maturity and he had put his signature on the withdrawal forms, the copies of which are Ex.R1, Ex.R4 and Ex.R7. It has further been canvassed that in the letter dated 23.3.2012 the Postal Department had not accepted the allegations of the complainant as correct. It was made clear in the said letter that the departmental enquiry was under way and no recovery could be made till date. Departmental Enquiry was conducted and it was found that the complainant had withdrawn the amounts in account nos.1116097, 1116578 and 1115661after maturity by submitting the withdrawal forms. It has lastly been argued that the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party no.3 made false entries and played fraud by mis-appropriating the amount deposited by him, cannot be decided by this Forum under summary jurisdiction, because for establishing forgery and fraud elaborate evidence is required.

10.              Thus, there is no dispute between the parties regarding depositing of Rs.40,000/- by the complainant in his accounts bearing no. 1116097, 1116578 and 1115661 with opposite party no.2. However, as per version of opposite parties, the complainant had withdrawn the amounts of the said accounts after maturity as is evident from the copies of the withdrawal forms Ex.R1, Ex.R4 and Ex.R7, which were duly signed by the complainant. The complainant has not admitted his signatures on the withdrawal forms. The opposite parties have also not admitted that the signatures of the complainant were forged by the opposite party no.3 or any other person on the withdrawal forms.

11.              Under Such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that issues regarding fraud and forgery are required to be decided in the present complaint. Thus, complicated questions of law and facts are involved and elaborate evidence by examining and cross-examining the witnesses and opinions of the Handwriting and other Experts are required to decide the matter in controversy between the parties, which cannot be done by this forum under summary jurisdiction. Only Civil Court is competent to decide such intricate questions of law and facts on the basis of elaborate evidence of the parties. The proposition of law laid down in Bhagwan Vishnoo Mahadeshwar’s case (supra) does not cut any ice in favour of the complainant under the aforediscussed facts and circumstances.

12.              In view of the foregoing discussion, complicated questions of law and facts involved in the matter in controversy cannot be adjudicated by this forum under summary jurisdiction, therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, the complainant would be at liberty to approach the competent forum/civil court for redressal of his grievance, if so advised, and in that case in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, he would be entitled to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the  period spent in prosecuting the present complaint, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such civil court. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 25.4.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal

 

                             (Veena Rani)    (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member