Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/316/2015

Harbhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

post Master, Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	316 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	16.6.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	21.09.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Harbhajan Singh (76 years) Senior Citizen S/o Basawa Singh, H. No. 164D (Ground Floor) Near Gurudwara, VPO Badheri, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Post Master, Post Office, Sector 55, Chandigarh

 

2.  Chief Post Master General (Punjab Circle)   Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     complainant in person

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh. G.C. Babbar, counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant deposited Rs.2,40,000/- in the monthly income scheme of Opposite Party No.1 and was allotted MIS account bearing No. 508436 with post office sector 55, Chandigarh. The complainant was to get Rs.1600/- as per interest per month under the monthly income scheme.  Accordingly the complainant by submitting a voucher withdrew Rs.6400/- on account of interest for the month of March 2014 to June 2014. But when he visited post office on 16.12.2014 for withdrawal of interest for the month from July 2014 to October 2014 he noticed that the dealing clerk had already made entry of withdrawal of Rs.6,400/- for the said month though no voucher was given by the complainant for withdrawal of the same and did not disburse the amount to the complainant on the ground that entries for July 2014 to October 2014 has already been made in the passbook. When the complainant asked to show the voucher containing his signature the said clerk alongwith other officials misbehaved with him. The complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Parties but no action was taken.  The complainant made repeated visits to the Opposite Parties but to no effect. It has been alleged that even in March 2013 the amount of Rs.1600/- was also not disbursed to the complainant and on his making complaint the dealing clerk was transferred.  Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2]       Opposite Parties have filed reply and admitted that the complainant withdrew Rs.6400/- on 26.6.2014 under his signatures. It has been pleaded that thereafter the complainant withdrew Rs.6400/- on 25.10.2014 under his signatures and entry was made in the passbook to this effect. Copies of vouchers duly signed by the complainant for withdrawal of the amount for the period 25.10.2014, 26.3.2013, and 26.6.2014 are attached as Ann.OP-1 to OP-3 respectively. It has been averred that the complainant had withdrawn the amount on 25.10.2014 but intentionally and willfully with an intention to commit fraud is denying the same. It is further averred that on denial of signatures and representation by the complainant on the matter in issue, the department made enquiry and concluded that the complainant had himself withdrawn the amount and signatures on the voucher are of the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant was not allowed to withdraw amount from July 2014 to October 2014 as the same was not due and payable at that time because he had already withdrawn the amount vide voucher dated 25.10.2014. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for Opposite Parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The Opposite Parties admitted the case of the complainant upto the extent that he deposited Rs.2.40 lacs in the monthly income scheme with them under MIS Account No.508436.  Further, admitted that the complainant was entitled to get the interest of Rs.1600/- per month under the above scheme, which the complainant was regularly withdrawing from his account as per his convenience. It is also admitted that the complainant by submitting a voucher withdrew an amount of Rs.6400/- on account of interest for the period from March to June, 2014.

 

6]       The dispute erupted when the complainant alleged that on his visit to the post office on 16.12.2014 for withdrawal of interest for the month from July to October, 2014, it was noticed that the Dealing Clerk had already made entry of withdrawal of Rs.6400/- for the said months and claimed that he never submitted any voucher for the withdrawal of the same.  The complainant further alleged that even in March, 2013 the amount of Rs.1600/- was also not disbursed to the complainant and on his making complaint, the dealing clerk was transferred.   

 

7]       The Opposite Parties in their defence submitted that the complainant himself submitted the voucher for the withdrawal of the disputed amount and accordingly, he withdrew the said interest amount for the period from July to October, 2014 and entry in the passbook was made accordingly by the officials concerned. They also submitted that on the complaint made by the complainant in this regard, they initiated Departmental Enquiry and both the parties i.e. the complainant as well as concerned officials were heard together and the complainant was also shown the vouchers signed by him for the disputed periods.  In the outcome of the enquiry, it was found that the complainant himself withdrew the amount by submitting the vouchers and accordingly, the entries were made by the officials concerned in the passbook of the complainant. OPs clarified further that they have also attached voucher dated 26.3.2013 duly signed by him under which he had withdrawn the amount of Rs.1600/- and now making false allegation against the Clerk of the Post Office. 

 

8]       The complainant time and again vide pleadings as well as through oral arguments submitted that the officials of the OPs have manipulated and forged his signature on the vouchers for the disputed period mentioned above  in order to get wrongful gain and which caused wrongful loss to the complainant.   

  

9]       We have gone through the whole record on file and minutely compared the signatures of the complainant appended on the complaint as well as in the copies of the vouchers/withdrawal forms (Ann.OP-1 to Opposite Party-3) placed on record by the OPs. At a glance, all these signatures on the file seems to be similar & signed by one person only i.e. complainant, but still we have no technical parameters to declare them similar, especially when the complainant alleges that his signatures have been forged. 

 

10]      It is settled law that where there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora where the proceedings are essentially summary in nature. Here we are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel, 2006(2) CPC 668 (SC) wherein it was held that the proceedings before the National Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held therein that in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In case Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United Insurance Co.-(1998) CPJ 13, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the Complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter.  Thus in view of the above authoritative pronouncements it is clear that complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to resort to any other remedy, available to him, under law.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned to the record room.

Announced

21^st September, 2015

 

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.316 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 21st day of September, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been dismissed.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member