Haryana

StateCommission

A/864/2017

NIRMALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEAD POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

MANOJ KUMAR TAYA

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

First Appeal No  :         861 to 870  and 996 & 997 of 2017

Date of Institution:        20.07.2017 and 17.08.2017

Date of Decision :         26.09.2018

 

 

 

 

F.A. No.861 of 2017

 

Satish Kumar son of Shri Ram Dutt, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.862 of 2017

 

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

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.863 of 2017

 

Sada Nand son of Shri Ram Dutt son of Shri Hazari Lal, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.864 of 2017

 

Nirmala daughter of Shri Mangal Singh, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                       Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.865 of 2017

 

Pirthi son of Shri Ghasi Ram, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.866 of 2017

 

Ram Kumar son of Shri Pirthi, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.867 of 2017

 

Birmi Devi wife of Shri Pirthi, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.868 of 2017

 

Ram Dutt son of Shri Hazari Lal, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.869 of 2017

 

Ram Dutt son of Shri Hazari Lal, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.869 of 2017

 

Ram Dutt son of Shri Hazari Lal, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.870 of 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.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.996 of 2017

 

Sombir son of Shri Om Prakash, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

F.A. No.997 of 2017

 

Mukesh Rani wife of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

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 Sh. Khazan Singh, Gram Sewak, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

         

 

Argued by:          Shri Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate for the appellants-complainants.

                             Ms. Archana Vashisht, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

                             Shri Chiranshu Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No.3

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

          This order disposes of afore-mentioned twelve appeals bearing 861 to 870 and 996 & 997 of 2017 filed by Satish Kumar, Shailender, Sada Nand, Nirmala, Pirthi, Ram Kumar, Birmi Devi, Ram Dutt, Ram Dutt, Ram Dutt, Safal Joon, Sombir and Mukesh Rani-complainants, because the question of facts and law involved is identical.

2.      By filing the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short, ‘District Forum’), the complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of Head Post Office, Karnal, Postmaster, Salwan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal and Shiv Kumar, Branch Postmaster, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballah, District Karnal.  The complainants had account in Sub Post Office, Village Kurlan, Tehsil Ballaha, District Karnal.  The complainants deposited certain amount in the Post Office.  The complainants wanted to withdraw the amount, the post officials did not entertain their request on the ground that some official of the post office viz. Shiv Kumar, postmaster, Village Kurlan, District Karnal misappropriated the funds. A certificate (Exhibit C-2) to this effect was also issued by the post office.  Shiv Kumar alongwith two others Raj Kumar and Dilbagh faced criminal trial in First Information Reports No.38, 192 and 485 dated January 18^th, 2012, May 27^th, 2012 and October 12^th, 2012 registered in Police Station Assandh, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and convicted vide judgment of conviction dated December 21^st, 2017 and order of sentence dated March 13^th, 2018. 

3.      The complaints were dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated April 25^th, 2017.  Operative paragraphs No.12 and 13 of the order are reproduced as under:-

          “12.   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 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.”

4.      The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora and other Tribunals were created to lessen the burden of Civil Courts, by way of alternate Fora and also to provide expeditious relief to the deserving without undergoing the costly, intricate and dilatorily procedures. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Fora cater to the needs of a special and specific category of litigants.  The jurisdiction and scope of the Civil Courts and such Fora have been well defined.  Simultaneously, summary procedure has to be adopted for decision by these Fora so that the consumers are not caught in the cobweb of long drawn battles of law and procedure besides, such Fora are presided by person who are or have been or are eligible to be District Judges.  In other words men of caliber having good knowledge of law, facts and procedure are to deal with consumer disputes.  They are not suppose to abdicate by taking refuge under the pretext that the matter involves complicated questions of facts and law.  It is their duty to decide all such questions by bringing into play their legal acumen, experience and knowledge of law and facts.   

5.      Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS. VERSUS SHRINATH CHATURVEDI III(2002) C.P.J. 8 (S.C.) held as under:-

“It is next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that Legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards….”

6.      In CCI Chambers Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 5887, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely because recording of evidence required on some facts and law which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for denial of trial of the complaint by the District Forum under this Act. 

7.      In Sutlej Textile and Industries Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank, 2010 (1), CPJ, 312, Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held as under:-

   “21. For the foregoing reasons and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case that complaint is based primarily on deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Bank, first in issuing a cheque book containing 100 cheques on the strength of an unauthorized requisition slip and, thereafter encashing 25 cheques bearing forged signatures of the authorized signatory(ies) of the complainant-company and making payment of the amounts of the cheques and debiting the amount to the account of the appellant-complainant to that extent, is well within the domain of the Consumer Fora and should be entertained and tried by a Consumer Forum like the State Commission. Such a complaint cannot be thrown out and the complainant relegated to Civil Court to pursue his remedy. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to protect the interests of the consumers. The Act provides inexpensive and speedy disposal of consumer disputes and, therefore, no attempt should be made to dilute the said mandate of the Legislature by refusing to entertain the complaints alleging deficiency in service.

         

8.      In view of law enunciated above, it will not be in the interest of law or justice for a Forum to abdicate its function and send the parties to a Civil Court merely because some questions involved can be answered only after taking evidence which will involve examination and cross-examination etc.  The approach exhibited by the District Forum in this case run counter to the very purpose of creating the District Fora. 

9.      For the reasons recorded supra, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum to decide the case on merits. 

10.    This matter pertains to the year 2013. This being so, the District Forum is directed to decide the complaint expeditiously preferably within a period of six months, which shall be from the date of appearance of the parties.       

11.    The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on November 30^th, 2018.

12.    Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

 

Announced: 26.09.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K