Date :  08.06.2016

             This appeal has emanated from order dated 17.09.2014 in CC No. 149/2013 passed by the Ld. District  Consumer Disputed Redressal Forum, Burdwan. (in short, District Forum) . By the impugned order, the District Forum has dismissed the case,

             The case of the Complainants is that they jointly opened one MIS account with the OP No.1 on 03.09.2011 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through Smt. Santoshi Routh, Postal Agent, attached with the OP No.1, and one Passbook bearing Account No. MIS-14602 under seal, stamp and signature of the  OP No.1 office  was issued  and supplied to them. They regularly drew monthly interest of Rs.1, 000/- starting from 03.10.2011 till 03.01.2012 (up to December,2011). Thereafter, no monthly interest was paid to them on the plea that the Passbook would be computerized from manual type  and retained by the Post Office in their custody  for such purpose.  Thereafter, when they went to the Post office to draw monthly interest and to get back the Passbook could know that the Passbook supplied by the Post Office is fake and all entries therein are false. It is a mischievous act done by the Post Office itself for some personal interest or gain, since interests were paid through the Passbook from the counter, for which act the Complainants must not suffer  in  any way, and the same is a deficiency in service  and unfair activity on the part of the Post Office concerned. As such, the case.

          On the other hand, the case of the OPs in the matter is that  in course of verification of balances of the Passbook of the Complainants,  it was detected that the alleged deposit was not  made by the Complainants to the OP No. 1  and the claim of the Complainants is concocted , myth and fraudulent for unlawful gain in collusion with the Santoshi Routh, the alleged SAS Agent. On departmental enquiry , a good number of fraud cases including the present one was detected against the said SAS Agent who illegally managed documents like Passbook,  stamps, and fake initials of postal staff,  and postal authority lodged an FIR  against said SAS Agent at Hirapur PS being Case No. 232/2012 and husband of said Santoshi Rolut was put under arrest and that both the husband and the wife are in conspiracy with each other and associated with the fraud. Accordingly, there is no relationship of customer or vendor between the complainants and the Postal Authority arose at all and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is myth. So, the complaint be rejected.

                 It is to be considered  if the impugned order suffers from  a kind of irregularity or illegality, for which the same is required to be interfered with in this appeal.

                                                  Decision with reasons:

             Authorized representative of the Appellants has submitted that there is no way for the Complainants to know that a false Passbook has been issued with the seal, stamp and signature of the Post Office, namely, the OP No. 1, which has been opened by them through the help of  the Agent working in the said Post Office. For such collusive acts, the postal authority is bound to take responsibility. He has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Commission in this resects as reported in  2012 (1) CPR 64, in which it was held that Post Office is responsible for the acts of its authorised agents. Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that through Agent, the MIS Account  was opened by the Complainant , but  the Passbook is a fake one.   No receipt of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- is filed by the Complainant. There has been criminal case in the matter. Accordingly, the impugned order is perfect in nature.

                Actually a Passbook  of the OP No. 1 has ben obtained by the Complainants in support of depositing Rs.1,50,000/-  in the MIS Account , which bears the Seal, Stamp and Signature of the OP No. 1 . For the fault  of the Agent, vicarious liability  of the Post Office is incurrable. Already, for such fraud, the said Agent has been involved in the criminal case. It is not the case of the OPs that the Complainants are involved in the fraud and / or parties in the fraud and that they have been named in the FIR as accused. So, the Complainants have a rightful case against   the OPs in respect of deposition of R s. 1,50,000/- with t he OP No. 1, as shown in the Pass Book of the OP No. 1. Such Passbook was obtained from the OP No. 1 and not  from any other source, having  emboss of the  seal, stamp and signature of the respective officials . The criminal case is purportedly against the Agent concerned. There is no  relation of the Complainants in the matter of punishment of the Agent. As such, the OPs are bound to indemnify the Complainants  in respect of the deposit of money and other reliefs as are set out in the ordering portion

              Hence

                                                                                             Ordered     

 that the appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent but without any cost . The impugned order is set aside. The OPs are directed to refund  Rs. 1,50,000/- only to the Complainants within a period 45 days, in default to pay interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.