Haryana

Karnal

628/2012

Sombir S/o Om Parkash - 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.628 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.: 27.12.2012

                                                               Date of decision:25.4.2017

 

Sombir son of Shri Om Parkash, 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.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

                   Ms. Veena Rani….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.724301 with opposite party no.2. He deposited as FDR (Fix Deposit Receipt) Rs.5,70,000/- on 27.3.2011, for a term of one year and the same matured on 26.3.2012. He required money for his personal need. Therefore, on 1.11.2011, 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 money, 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.724301 on 16.3.2009, by depositing an amount of Rs.500/-He had withdrawn an amount of Rs.450/- on 28.6.2009 and after withdrawal, an amount of Rs.50/-remained in his account with Post Office having branch at village Kurlan. As part of procedure of post offices, the pass book prepared by Post Office is given to the depositor and receipt on the reverse of SB26 is given by the depositor. The complainant handed over the Savings Bank receipt after putting his signature, which clearly shows that the complainant had received the pass book of account no.724301 for Rs.500/- on 16.3.2009. 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.138 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, as no documentary proof in support of the claim was produced, therefore, the claim was rejected. It has been denied that the complainant deposited in FDR an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- on 27.3.2011 for a term of one year and the said FDR matured on 26.3.2012. 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.724301 by depositing an amount of Rs.500/-. After depositing the said amount, the opposite party no.3 issued a pay-in-slip to the complainant for the amount of Rs.500/-, which was duly signed by the complainant/depositor. An amount of Rs.450/- was withdrawn by the complainant. 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 the 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.C47 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.R5 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.5,70,000/- on 27.3.2011 for a term of one year, as FDR in his account bearing no.724301 with opposite party no.2, but when he wanted to withdraw the said amount, which matured on 26.3.2012, 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 depositing Rs.5,70,000/- by the complainant in FDR on 27.3.2011 as alleged. It has been submitted that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.500/- in his account on 16.3.2009 and out of the said amount he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.450/- on 18.6.2009.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant laid emphasis on the contention that opposite party no.3 had made entry in the pass book of the complainant, the copy of which is Ex.C2, regarding depositing an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- on 27.3.2011. The opposite party no.3 also admitted in his certificate, the copy of which is Ex.C3 that Sombir complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- in fixed deposit for one year on 16.3.2011. After getting entry made in the pass book, the complainant did not suspect the bonafide of opposite party no.3, but opposite party no.3 did not deposit the said amount in the account of the complainant in the main post office and misappropriated the same. It has further been argued that opposite party no.3 had mis-appropriated 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.138 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.C10, 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.5,70,000/- from the complainant and made entry in his pass book, but he committed fraud by not depositing the same in the post office. It has been lastly argued that the 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 contention, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 vehemently argued that the complainant deposited only an amount of Rs.500/- in his account on 16.3.2009 and the pass book prepared by the post office was given to him and he gave receipt on the reverse side of SB26, the copy of which is Ex.R1. The complainant also handed over savings bank receipt, the copy of which is Ex.R2, after putting his signature, which established that he had received pass book of account no.724301 for Rs.500/-on 16.3.2009. The complainant had withdrawn an amount of Rs.450/- on 18.6.2009 and the withdrawal form, the copy of which is Ex.R3, was signed by him. Thus, an amount of Rs.50/- was left as balance in his account after withdrawal of Rs.450/- and entries in the ledger card, the copy of which is Ex.R4, also proves such fact. It has further been contended that the First Information Reports 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.5,70,000/- in fixed deposit for term of one year on 27.3.2011, as alleged. It has further been canvassed that the Postal Department  in the letter dated 23.3.2012 to Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, the copy of which is Ex.C10 did not accept that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- in fixed deposit for term of one year and that the amount was mis-appropriated by 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 produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim, therefore, his claim was rejected. In this regard, he made reference to the letter dated 19.2.2015 sent by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Karnal to the Chief Postmaster General Haryana Circle, Ambala. Learned counsel for the opposite parties lastly argued that the complainant has failed to establish that he had deposited Rs.5,70,000/- in Fixed Deposit for term of one year on 27.3.2011. 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.              The copy of the pass book of the complainant Ex.C2 shows that other entries were also made prior to the entry dated 27.3.2011, regarding Rs.5,70,000/-. Initial entry dated 16/17.8.2009 was regarding Rs.5,00,000/-, the next entry dated 16.3.2010 was for an amount of Rs.5,32,000/-, the third entry dated 16.3.2010 was of Rs.6,00,000/-, the forth entry dated 27.3.2011 was of Rs.6,38,400/- and the last entry dated 27.3.2011 was of Rs.5,70,000/-. The copy of the preliminary SB receipt dated 16.3.2009, the copy of which is Ex.R1 was of Rs.500/- and the same was purportedly signed by the complainant on the back side. The savings bank receipt, the copy of which is Ex.R2, dated 16.3.2009 for Rs.500/- was also purportedly signed by the complainant. Withdrawal form, the copy of which is Ex.R3, was also purportedly signed by the complainant at two places. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant submitted that these documents were not signed by the complainant. Shiv Kumar opposite party no.3 has also not admitted his signature on Ex.C3. He has also not admitted the correctness of the entries made in the pass book of the complainant.

11.              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.5,70,000/- 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.

12.              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