Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/169/2019

Smt. Ranjana Baklival w/o Ramesh Bakliwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Office Rajapark - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Jain

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 161/2019

 

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur

Vs.

Ramesh Chand Bhatia s/o Heeranand Bhatia r/o 1 Ta 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO; 162/2019

 

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur

Vs.

Amit Bhatia s/o Ramesh Chand Bhatia r/o 1 Ta 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO; 163/2019

 

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur

Vs.

Chandra Bhatia w/o Ramesh Chand Bhatia r/o 1 Ta 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. & ors.

 

2

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 171/2019

 

Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal w/o Ramesh Bakliwal r/o 60/79 Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

vS.

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 170/2019

 

Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal w/o Ramesh Bakliwal r/o 60/79 Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

vS.

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 169/2019

 

Smt. Ranjana Bakliwal w/o Ramesh Bakliwal r/o 60/79 Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

vS.

Post Office, Raja Park, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 15.4.2019

3

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Meena Mehta-Member

 

Mr. S.S.Naruka counsel for Post Office

Mr. Rajesh Jain counsel for Ranjana Bakliwal

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

All these appeals are preferred against the single order hence, are decided by this common order. Facts are taken from Appeal No. 163/2019.

 

The contention of the Post Office is that only Rs.30,000/- were deposited with the appellants. Hence, appellant is not liable and contention of the agent Ranjana Bakliwal is that she never accepted the amount from the complainant hence, she cannot be held liable.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

4

 

The case of the complainant was that he paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the Post Office and record of the case also shows that Anx. 1 Pass Book was also issued to the complainant respondent entering Rs. 3 lakhs in the Pass Book. Even ledger which has been submitted contains interpolation in the ledger. When pass book has been issued to the complainant, it was the duty of the post office to honour the amount and the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim. Reliance could be placed on CPR 2018 (I2) 266 (NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Risheendran Nambiar & ors. where the National Commission is of the view that when agent failed to deposit the amount of premium collected by him, the insurance company is liable for all acts and omissions of its agent.

 

Further reliance could be placed on 2018 (2) CPR 439 (NC) Bhartiya Dak Vibhag Vs. Krishna Kumar Agarwal where the National Commission has held that post office is liable for acts of its agent.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the post office.

 

5

 

The contention of the agent is that she has no relation with the above accounts but contention is not acceptable as account opening form contains the signatures of Ranjana Bakliwal.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in all these appeals and all appeals stand dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm