Haryana

Karnal

206/2013

Shailender S/o Ami Lal - 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.206 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 30.04.2013

                                                               Date of decision:25.4.2017

 

Shailender son of Shri Ami Lal, resident of village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..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 an account bearing no.723632 with opposite party no.2. He deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as FDR (Fix Deposit Receipt) for a term of one year on 21.1.2012 and the same matured on 20.1.2013. He required money for his personal need. Therefore, he approached opposite party no.2 through opposite party no.3 for withdrawal of the amount of the said FDR. 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, 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, 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.723632 on 26.7.2006 and deposited  an amount of Rs.1000/-. In that account misappropriation of Rs.950/- was established and claim of Rs.950/- was sanctioned in favour of depositor on 4.9.2012.. 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 Kurlan 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 justified for Rs.950/- only and the same was sanctioned in his favour. He could not produce proof of his claim, therefore, the same was rejected. It has been denied that the complainant deposited in FDR an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 21.1.2012 for a term of one year as alleged. The other allegations made in the complaint have also 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.723632  by depositing an amount of Rs.1000/-. After depositing the said amount, the opposite party no.3 issued a pay-in-slip to the complainant for the amount of Rs.1000/-, which was duly signed by the complainant/depositor. There was no scheme of FDR in the Post Office. The complainant manipulated the entries of the copy of the Post Office given to him. There was no verification and signature by the opposite party no.3 or other competent authority in the said copy of the post office, which was with the complainant. The complainant misrepresented the record in the post office and the local police involved opposite party no.3 in false and frivolous cases. The claim of the complainant 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 of pay-in-slip regarding alleged amount 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, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C27 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 and R2 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 as FDR an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for a term of one year on 21.1.2012 in his account no.723632 with opposite party no.2 and the said FDR matured on 20.1.2013,  but when he wanted to withdraw the said amount after maturity, he was threatened by opposite party no.3 and his amount was not released by opposite parties no.1 and 2 despite various representations. On the other hand, the opposite parties have denied the factum of the depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant in FDR on 21.1.2012, as alleged. It has been submitted that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.1000/- . In that account misappropriation of Rs.950/- was established and a claim of Rs.950/- was sanctioned in favour of the depositor.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party no.1 issued a slip, the copy of which is Ex.C2 regarding depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. After the said receipt of the pass book, the complainant did not suspect the bonafide of opposite party no3, but the opposite party no.3 did not deposit the said amount in his account in the main post office and misappropriated the same. It has further 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 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 Ms. Nirmla Devi, 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, the copy of which is Ex.C6, 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 amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for depositing the same as FDR, and made entry in his pass book, but committed fraud by not depositing the same in the post office.  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 vehemently argued that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.1000/- in his account and the pass book prepared by the post office was given to him.  After sanctioning an amount of Rs.950/-, only an amount of Rs.50/- was left as balance in his account as shown in the copy of the ledger Ex.R2. It has further been argued that First Information Report lodged against opposite party no.3 by some other depositors and one First Information Report lodged by Postal Department regarding accounts of some other persons, do not establish in any manner that the complainant had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit for term of one year on 21.1.2012 as alleged. It has further been canvassed that the Postal Department in the letter dated 23.3.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal did not accept that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and fixed deposit for term of one year and that the amount was mis-appropriated by the opposite party no.3.  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, but the complainant could not establish his claim, therefore, his claim regarding depositing Rs.1,00,000/- as FDR was not found admissible.  It has lastly been argued that the complainant has failed to establish that he had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in Fixed Deposit for term of one year on 21.1.2012. Moreover, 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.

9.                The complainant has not produced the copy of the passbook. Only Ex.C2, the copy of receipt of Depositor’s passbook has been produced. The said document was purportedly signed by Post Master on 25.1.2012. Shiv Kumar opposite party no.3 has not admitted his signature on Ex.C2. He has also not admitted the correctness of the entries made in the pass book of the complainant.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      10.              A perusal of the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office to Deputy Commissioner, Karnal also makes it quite clear that the Postal Department had not accepted that the opposite party no.3 had mis-appropriated the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the complainant, because at the time of sending the said letter departmental enquiry was going on. Therefore, on the basis of such document it cannot be said in any manner that the postal department had admitted the allegations regarding claim of the complainant and other persons. Even after enquiry, the claim of the complainant was not admitted as correct. First Information Reports lodged against opposite party no.3 also do not substantiate the claim of the complainant.

11.              Under Such facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that issue 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 question 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.

13.              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 suit. 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