Haryana

Karnal

CC/185/2020

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Head Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Kumar

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                    Complaint no.185 of 2020

                                                    Date of instt.: 27.05.2020

                                                    Date of decision:13.12.2022

 

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Dia, resident of village Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                         ……..Complainant.

                                        Vs.

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

 

2.     Postmaster, Post office, Manujra, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                          

         ….… Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before:     Sh. Jaswant Singh………..President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                   Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

               

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

                  Shri Surinder Saini Advocate for OPs.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER: 

 

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has two accounts bearing no.662967/9745628286 and 1218953/3568127015 with the OP no.2 and had deposited Rs.28,000/-on 20.01.2017 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.05.2017 in the shape of FDR for a term of one year and five years respectively. The said amount was deposited by the complainant with the official Incharge namely Pala Ram being the Branch Post Master, posted at Branch Post office, Manjura and who received the abovesaid amount on behalf of OPs, being an employee or the agent of the OPs, with the assurance that the amount deposited will be paid with interest on maturity, as applicable to such account from time to time. The Incharge of the Branch Post Office, Manjura used to deposit the amount of maturity to the account holders and believing him as well as the post office being Government Department, the complainant relied upon the Incharge of the OP no.2 and deposited the abovesaid amount in his accounts. The complainant was in need of the deposited amount, then it transpired that the said Incharge namely Pala Ram has committed suicide, a new Incharge joined in the Branch, as Branch Post Master and on enquiry, it was found by the complainant that no such amount has been deposited in the shape of FDR in the abovesaid account mentioned above and refused to make the payment of the abovesaid FDR to the complainant. It is further averred that the FDR bears authenticated stamp, as well as the signatures of the then Branch Post Master of Post Office, Manjura. When complainant did not receive the FDR amount, she made so many representations to the higher authorities, as well as issued the legal notice dated 01.10.2018 but till date, no such payment has been made to the complainant, despite the receiving of the original passbook against a valid receipt, as well as official enquiry conducted by the OPs. The deceased Pala Ram, the then Branch Post Master was working with the OP no.2 as per the instructions/directions, rules and regulations of opposite party no.1. Due to 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.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has account no.662967/9745628286 and 1218953/3568127015 with the OP no.2 and has deposited Rs.28,000/-on 20.01.2017 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.05.2017 in the shape of FDR for a term of five years respectively. As per Government record, RD account no. 662967/9745628286 does not exist and RD account no.1218953/3568127015  (9745793451) in the name of Shri Vikram Singh Manjura for Rs.10/- stands with balance of Rs.20/- only. In fact there is time deposit accounts scheme exists which means only one deposit in one account. Shri Pala Ram, the then GDSBPM had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts at his own without any intimation to the Account Office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office. It is further pleaded that as per the instruction issued by the department of posts in cover page of saving bank at serial no.2, it is clearly mentioned that it is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and the post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. Further, the branch post master is not authorized to issue any kind of saving scheme passbooks. Saving scheme passbooks for new accounts are issued by the account office of the branch office. As per photocopy of passbook attached by the complainant, Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts. It is further pleaded that it is clear from the passbooks that the said passbooks do not bear serial no.1 and 2 etc. Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts without any intimation to account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office.  It is further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted by the inspector, Post Offices (East) Sub Division, Karnal and as per enquiry verification of all accounts (1280) for the period w.e.f.07.11.1997 to 16.01.2018 have done at branch office Manjura by the committee and no cause of fraud came out but in some accounts the aforesaid Shri Pala Ram himself prepared and issued fake passbooks. These passbooks has mentioned in the claim application have no details or records in the Branch Post Office Manjura (Nissing). It is further pleaded that Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts without any intimation to account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office. Moreover, no complaint regarding non-depositing of the amount in the government account has received from any depositor during the lifetime of Shri Pala Ram. However, branch post master is not authorized to issue any kind of saving scheme passbooks. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of receipt of depositor passbook Ex.C1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, copy of complaint to Deputy Commissioner Ex.C3, copy of complaint to Prime Minister Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5, copies of complaints to C.M. Window dated 19.02.2018 Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of complaint to General Post Master Ex.C8, copy of legal notice Ex.C9, postal receipts and ADs Ex.C10 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence on 24.09.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh, Senior Superintendent Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on 07.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

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.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.28,000/- on 20.01.2017 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.05.2017 for a term of one year and five years respectively in the shape of FDR. The said amount had deposited by the complainant through the then official Incharge namely Pala Ram being Branch Post Master. When the date of maturity came nearby and complainant was in need of the money, it came notice of the complainant that, the then GDSBPM, has committed suicide. When the new Incharge joined the said post office, he informed that no such amount for which FDR, passbooks have been issued by the said Incharge, have been accounted in the Post Office and denied to refund the deposited amount. He further argued that said Pala Ram had misappropriated the amounts of other depositors of village Manjura and made false entries in their pass books. He further argued that 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 relied upon the case laws cited in Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Versus Bagwan Vishnoo Mahadeshwar 1(2004) CPJ 193, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Risheendran Nambiar and others in Revision Petition no.2153 of 2010, decided on 14.03.2018, Post Office & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Grover in Revision Petition no.1278 of 2016, decided on 06.10.2017, State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Kanchanmala Vijyasing Shirke and Ors in Civil Appeal no.7564 of 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil ) no.3298 of 1993) date of decision 22.08.1995 of Hon’ble Supreme Court and 2008(2) CPJ 365 in case titled as Rigid Global (India) Versus Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and others of Hon’ble State Commission Rajasthan (Jaipur)            

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that complainant has not deposited an amount Rs.28,000/- dated 20.01.2017 and Rs.50,000/- dated 10.05.2017 in the shape of FDR for a term of one year and five years respectively. Pala Ram, the then GDSBPM had made forged entries in  fixed deposit passbook accounts at his own without any intimation to the Account Office. He further argued that as per the instruction issued by the department of posts, it is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and the post office is only legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. The enquiry was conducted by the inspector, Post Offices (East) Sub Division, Karnal and as per enquiry on verification of all accounts (1280) for the period w.e.f.07.11.1997 to 16.01.2018 have done at branch office Manjura by the committee and no cause of fraud came out but in some accounts the aforesaid Shri Pala Ram himself prepared and issued fake passbooks and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.            It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that this Commission has already decided the complaints in favour of the then depositors on 12.02.2020 on the same allegations and cause of action, the orders passed by the Commission have been challenged by the OPs before the Hon’ble State Commission by way of filing first appeals and said appeals have been dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 28.09.2020. Learned counsel for complainant has also placed on file copy of order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission whereby Hon’ble State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the OPs.

11.            Admittedly, the then Incharge Branch Post Office Manjura, namely Pala Ram, who has issued the alleged FDR, has committed suicide.

12.            Now, the first question for consideration is whether the complainant has deposited the claimed amount to Pala Ram the then Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) in the branch Post office Manjura or not? 

13.            To prove his case, complainant has placed on file receipts  Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.28,000/- and Rs.50,000/- deposited with OPs’ branch at post office Manjura. The said amount had been deposited by him with the official Incharge of the Department posted at Branch Post Office, Manjura, Pala Ram had received the said amount being an employee, agent of the OPs with the assurance that the same would be paid with interest on its maturity. The passbook had been issued by the said Incharge. The passbook has borne authenticated stamp of the post office and signature of the Incharge, Sub Post Office Manjura. It is not a case of the OPs that the then Pala Ram was not its employee and he has not received the money from the depositors. When the deposited amounts had not been refunded to the depositors then they filed the complaint Ex.C3 dated 29.09.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, complaint Ex.C4 dated 19.02.2018 to the Prime Minister of India, complaint to C.M. Window Ex.C6 dated 19.02.2018, complaint Ex.C8 to the General Post Master, Head Office, Delhi. It has been proved on the file that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.28,000/- on 20.01.2017 and Rs.50,000/- on 10.05.2017 and same has not been refunded on its maturity. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount.

 

14.           It is admitted that the enquiry was conducted in the said matter and during the process of enquiry all the original documents i.e. FDR, passbook etc. have been collected by the Enquiry Officer from the depositors and the same are lying with him.

15.           OPs have taken a plea that RD account no. 662967/9745628286 does not exist and RD account no.1218953/3568127015  (9745793451) in the name of Shri Vikram Singh Manjura for Rs.10/- stands with balance of Rs.20/- only. The onus to prove its version lies upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs have only tendered affidavit of Ranjit Singh, Senior Superintendent Ex.OP1 and no other documentary evidence have been placed on file to prove its version. It is not proved on the file that account no. 662967/9745628286 does not exist and account no.1218953/3568127015 (9745793451) in the name of Shri Vikram Singh Manjura. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has not force.

16.            The next question for consideration is that whether the concerned department i.e. OPs are liable for the wrong acts of its employees or not?

17.            Learned counsel for the complainant submits that Pala Ram was employee of the Postal Department, thus the Post Office is accountable for his mis-conduct and the complainant is entitled for the deposited amount alongwith interest from the post office and its vicarious liability of the OPs. Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs submits that the OPs are not liable to pay any amount on the wrong act committed by said Pala Ram, who was not entitled to collect the money from the depositors. We found no substance in the contention of the OPs. In this regard, we rely upon the case title as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India’s case (supra) 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. Further, Risheendran Nambiar’s case (supra) the insurer shall be responsible for all the acts and omissions of its agents including violation of code of conduct specified under clause (h) of sub section (3) and liable to a penalty which  may extend to one crore rupees.  Further, in Akhilesh Grover’s case (supra) not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service of their part. Further, in Kanchanmala Vijaysing’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that vicarious liability Accident-Driver under the influence of liquor authorized a clerk to drive-Jeep belonging is state Government the scooter resulting in a fatal accident-Held, that it is a negligent act in the course of employment-Further held that the State cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim. Further, in Rigid Global’s case (supra) in which Hon’ble State Commission Rajasthan held that misrepresentation or fraud-A principal is liable for agents’ fraud acting within scope of his authority, whether fraud is committed for benefit of principal or for benefit of agent.

18.            Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that OPs are liable for the wrong acts committed by its employees and complainant is entitled for the claim amount.  Thus, act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.           

19.            As discussed above that Pala Ram was the employee of OPs hence the OPs are liable for wrong act committed by their employee. However, OPs are at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the assets of the concerned defaulting employee i.e. Pala Ram (since deceased) or his LRs as per law.

20.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.28,000/- and Rs.50,000/-  to the complainant with interest @ as prescribed in the FDRs from its deposition till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.         

Announced

Dated:13.12.2022.                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

               Member                              Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer