RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1820 of 2003
Karunesh Kumar s/o Sri Ram Anuj, R/o Tala,
Pargana & Tehsil, Patti, District, Pratapgarh….Appellant.
Versus
Superior Superintendent of Post Office,
District, Pratapgarh, Pratapgarh. ….Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.
Sri Alok Sinha, counsel for the appellant.
Dr. U.V. Singh, counsel for the respondent.
Date 2.1.2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma, Member)
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.4.2003, passed by the District Forum, Pratapgarh in complaint case no.61 of 2001.
The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant/complainant had opened 4 RD accounts no.166729, 166730, 166731 and 167386 which were in the name of Ram Kishore, Mahendra Kumar, Ram Anuj and Karunesh Kumar wherein Rs.630.00, 630.00, 630.00 and 189.00 respectively, were deposited but when asked for the passbooks from the Post Master Sri Nisar Ahmad, then the passbooks were not given to them whereby the complainant could not deposite further instalments. Despite making a written complaint in this regard on 29.9.2000, the passbooks were not returned to him. It transpires that the Post Master has misappropriated the
(2)
amount. The complainant thereafter, filed a complaint case in the Forum below wherein the OP filed their WS mentioned therein that Karunesh Kumar Gupta, Ram Kishor Gupta, Ram Anuj Gupta and Mahendra Kumar Gupta had opened account on 9.11.1999 by depositing Rs.30.00 and others by depositing Rs.100.00 on 30.11.1999 respectively. Out of theses amounts only account no.177386 in the name of the complainant and rest do not pertain to the complainant. With regard to the aforesaid account numbers, it is mentioned that no amount was deposited for 5 months therefore, in case of such default the deposited amount was refunded. It was also mentioned that the complaint was not maintainable with regard to all the accounts holder. Besides, whenever passbooks are taken then a receipt no.SB 28 is given to the depositor but the complainant has not filed any receipt to show that the passbooks were taken by the Post Master. It is also submitted that Kamlesh Kumar Gupta's father Shri Ram Anuj Gupta was posted as Post Master in Tala and he was removed from the service under the departmental rules and that Shri Nisar Ahmad was posted as Post Master and therefore, due to revenge that this complaint was filed hence, it is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the Forum below dismissed the complaint on 7.4.2003.
Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal order that the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that the RD accounts were operated by the appellant/complainant and at the time of depositing the
(3)
money these passbooks contained money of Rs.630.00, 630.00, 630.00 and Rs.189.00. The passbooks were not returned to the depositors by the OP. Hence, the OP is not only liable to refund the amount of Rs.2,079.00 with interest but also to produce the passbooks but as the ld. Forum had dismissed the complaint without considering the relevant facts, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.
The respondent has filed the objection against this appeal on the ground that this appeal is time barred and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Besides, the ld. Forum has passed the order correctly, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had opened his RD account with the respondent/OP. The disputed point according to the complainant is that he had opened 4 RD accounts wherein certain amounts were deposited in each account but the passbooks of the same were not given to him and therefore, the OP committed deficiency in service. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent that firstly, the appeal is time barred and therefore, is liable to be dismissed on this score itself. Secondly, the complaint could not have been filed by the complainant only as it pertains to 3 more accounts which did not pertain to him and lastly, the respondent/OP did not commit any deficiency in service as the complainant himself has not deposited any amount for many months
(4)
and therefore, under the rules accounts were closed and the money refunded to the account holders.
So, now firstly, it is to be seen as to whether this appeal is time barred or not.
In this regard, it transpires that the impugned order was passed on 7.4.2003 and the copy of the same was taken by the appellant/complainant on 7.4.2003 but the appeal has been filed on 15.7.2003 and therefore, it is the argument of the ld. counsel for the respondent as it has been filed beyond the period of 30 days, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. But, in this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant/complainant that a delay condonation application supported with affidavit was moved with the appeal wherein it is contended by the appellant that he had contacted the lawyer for filing the appeal but he told him that the limitation period for filing the appeal is 90 days but subsequently, he could come to know that in the Commission the time limit for filing the appeal is 30 days only and hence, he contacted the lawyer Sri Alok Sinha in July, 2003 and thereafter, the appeal was file on 15.7.2003. So the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned but we find that the grounds taken by the appellant are quite flimsy and are devoid of any substance as there is no evidence to show as to who was the lawyer who told him that the time limit to file the appeal is 90 days when it is actually 30 days only. There is also no sufficient reason given by the complainant for not contacting the Advocate immediately for filing the appeal in the State Commission. So the grounds are not sufficient
(5)
enough to justify the delay in filing this appeal. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed and therefore, this appeal is held to be time barred and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this score itself.
We come to the next point as to whether the complaint should be filed by one complainant for 3 more complainants. The appellant has not been able to show any rule whereby just one complaint could be filed for 3 other depositors when the matter pertains all the persons including complainant individually. Therefore, this complaint could not have been filed by the complainant only for 3 other depositors as their accounts were different and simply because the complainant was allegedly operating all the 4 accounts does not entitle the complainant to file the complaint with regard to 3 other depositors. Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable in the manner in which it was presented by the complainant for all the complainants in the Forum below.
With regard to the alleged deficiency in service of the respondent/OP, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the respondent/complainant did not return the passbooks and misappropriated the amount of the passbooks but there is no evidence given by the complainant with regard to depositing of the passbooks with the respondent/OP. It is also clear from the stand taken by the complainant that there was default in making payment of the RD accounts for more than 4 months. The complainant has not been able to prove that the passbooks
(6)
were in fact deposited by him with the respondent as he takes the name of Sri Nisar Ahmad, Post Master for keeping the passbooks but he has not been named as an OP in the instant case which was very necessary as the allegations are directly against Sri Nisar Ahmad only and the OP has also come up with the allegation that Kamlesh Kumar's father Shri Ram Anuj Gupta was taken away from the post of Post Master from Tala for the departmental reasons and that Shri Nisar Ahmad was posted on that post and therefore, one of the account holder Ram Anuj Gupta was having an animus against Sri Nisar Ahmad, Post Master. Ironically Shri Nisar Ahmad was not made a party and in view of clear cut stand of the OP that the complainant on making default of not depositing the amount under rules, the amount was refunded and therefore, no deficiency in service was committed by the OP.
On the basis of the discussions made herein above, it is clear that the complainant could not prove that the OP had committed deficiency in service and therefore, the ld. Forum has rightly concluded in this regard. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds mentioned above.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(Vijai Varma) (Raj Kamal Gupta)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA-II
Court No.2
