Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1985

POST OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH K. PATEL - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJEEV JAIN

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                    

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 11.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.27/2015 by the District Commission, Narsinghpur)

 

1. PRAVAR ADHIKSHAK,

    DIVISIONAL POST OFFICE, HOSHANGABAD,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT- HOSHANGABAD (M.P.)

 

2. HEAD POST MASTER,

    MAIN POST OFFICE,

    DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)

 

3. INCHARGE POSTMASTER,

    SUB POST OFFICE-KHAMTARA,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR 

    THROUGH HEAD POST MASTER,

    MAIN POST OFFICE-NARSINGHPUR

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR.                                                          …          APPELLANTS.

 

Versus                

1. RAJESH KUMAR PATEL,

    S/O SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL

 

2. SMT. SUNITA PATEL,

    W/O SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PATEL,

    BOTH R/O KHAMTARA,

    TEHSIL & DISTRICT-NARSINGHPUR (M.P.)                                                 …         RESPONDENTS.                                 

                                  

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                    :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY             :      MEMBER 

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA       :      MEMBER 

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

      Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.

      None for the respondent.

     

                                                               

                                                            O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 16.01.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Member:    

                         This is an appeal by the opposite parties/appellants against order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

-2-

Redressal Commission, Narsinghpur (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.27/2015 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents and ordered opposite parties jointly or severally to make payment of Rs.4,89,187/- to complainant with interest calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from 31.10.2014 within one month from the date of judgment. The District   Commission has further ordered opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost.

2.                In brief relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the complainants have filed above complaint before District Commission against opposite parties wherein it has been alleged that Ashok Patel, an employee of opposite party no.2 & 3 after receiving a sum of Rs.50/- from the complainants, had opened a savings bank account no.391046 in the name of the complainants in opposite party no.2 post office on 21.11.2011.  He had also issued a passbook to them. Thereafter till 21.11.2011 they had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in their account through Ashok Patel. It is alleged that Ashok Patel after receiving the amount and after making entry in the passbook with affixture of seal used to return the passbook to the complainants. The other residents of same village also opened bank accounts in opposite party no.2-post office through Ashok Patel but when they asked Ashok Patel to return the amount deposited by them, Ashok Patel procrastinated in refunding the amount of which they made a

-3-

complaint to the opposite party no.2- Head Post Master, Main Post Office, District-Narsinghpur. On complaint being made, the opposite party no.2 told that no amount was deposited with the post-office and made a talk with Ashok Patel. On this Ashok Patel assured him to return the amount within 10 days but when he did not return the amount within 10 days, the depositors on 09.02.2015 lodged a complaint with the Police Station-Narsinghpur. The subordinate employee of opposite party no.1 and 2 had died and therefore, the office of the opposite party no.3 has been closed and the entire record is under protection of opposite party no.2. Thus the opposite parties are trying to escape from refund of amount deposited by the complainants. Thus, the complainants alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint seeking refund of Rs.4,89,187/- the amount deposited by them with interest along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

3.                The appellants/opposite parties have filed written statement before District Commission denying the allegations made in the complaint and have stated that Ashok Patel was not authorized by the department to open the accounts as also to collect and deposit the amount in bank accounts. Rule 8 (7) of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules,1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) framed by the Central Government, provides that ‘The Post Office shall not be responsible for any entries in the

-4-

pass book not authenticated under the initials of authorized official.’ In the present case, Post Master, Khamtara Post Office was authorized with whom the complainant did not deposit the said amount. Shri Ashok Patel is working as Male Overseer in Narsinghpur Head Post Office and he was not authorized by the Department of Posts to collect the amount and to deposit the same in post office savings bank accounts. If the complainants had given amount to deposit the same in bank account to an unauthorized person, then the post office is not liable for the same. The amount mentioned by the complainants was not deposited in any account with the post office. The complainants did not provide the original pass book whereas for departmental enquiry it is necessary to find out the actual position. No transaction took place between the complainants and the post office, personal transaction took place between the complainants and Ashok Patel. The opposite parties post office has already lodged a complaint against Ashok Patel with the police station-Narsinghpur. Since criminal case is filed, the District Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint. With the aim of making more profit, the complainant in collusion with Ashok Patel has filed this frivolous complaint. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.  

 

 

-5-

4.                After having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record the District Commission has drawn conclusion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. In view of conclusion

drawn above the District Commission has allowed complaint and passed order as mentioned above.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order as also the record of the District Commission.

6.                Learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has contended that the impugned order is against law as well as evidence. The District     Commission has committed grave error in granting relief to the complainants. He has further contended that as per 8(7) of Rules, the post office saving bank shall not be responsible for any entries in the pass book not authenticated under the initials of authorized official. In Khamtara Post Office, Branch Postmaster, Khamtara was authorized for transaction with whom no amount was deposited by the complainant. If the complainants had deposited the amount with an unauthorized person, the post office cannot be held liable for the same.

7.                Learned Counsel for the appellants has further contended that the District Commission did not consider this aspect that the complainant/respondent firstly asked Ashok Patel to give the amount deposited by him, when he did not pay the same, the respondents lodged a

-6-

complaint against him with the police which clearly goes to show that there was personal transaction between the complainants and Ashok Patel.

8.                Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that as per Rule 5(2) of the Rules, ‘Each deposit shall be accompanied by a pay-in-slip in the manner prescribed and the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip shall be returned to the tenderer duly receipted.’ But in the present case, the respondents failed to produce any such pay-in-slips which clearly demonstrate that the respondents did not deposit any amount with the post office. He placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Superintendent of Post Offices, Balughat & Ors Vs Mahendra Nath Basak, Secretary Safanagar High School I (1995) CPJ 177 (NC) argued that a fraud involving fake entries in the pass book alone cannot be deemed to constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the financial institution-Bank or Post Office as the case may be.

9.                None appeared for the respondents though served.

10.              The complainants/respondents has filed affidavit of Biharilal Vishwakarma, counter affidavit along with documents C-1 to C-4. On behalf of opposite parties/appellants affidavit of Shri Sitaram Chourasia, Post Master, Post Office, Narsinghpur has been filed along with documents R-1 to R-3.

 

-7-

11.              The District Commission has held in its impugned order that since Ashok Patel was an employee of the opposite parties post office therefore the post office is responsible. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in G. Krishna Kumar & Anr Vs Har Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Ors III (2016) CPJ 521 (NC) held that ‘It is well settled principle that master is vicariously liable for the wrong committed by this servant and allowed the complaint to the extent indicated hereinabove. However, the District Commission has not examined the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981.

12.              To examine the correctness of finding recorded by the District Commission, the relevant provisions given under 5(2), 7(1), 8(2) (5)(6)& (7) of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, are reproduced below:

Rule-5 Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 deals with Mode of Deposit. 5 (2) reads as follows:-

5(2)"Each deposit shall be accompanied by a pay-in-slip in the manner prescribed and the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip shall be returned to the tenderer duly receipted."

Rule-7 Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 deals with Identification of Depositor. 7 (1) reads as follows:-

7(1)“Attestation of the signature of depositor by a person known to the Post Office or a bank or authorities specified in this behalf.”

Rule-8 Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 deals with Pass Book. 8 (2) (5) (6) & (7) reads as follows:-

-8-

8(2) “It shall be the responsibility of the depositor to keep the pass book in safe custody.”

8(5) “When the pass book is returned duly completed, the depositor shall bring the errors or omissions therein, if any, to the notice of the Post Office Savings Bank forthwith and in the event of the depositor’s failure to do so the Post Office Savings Bank shall not be responsible for any loss arising from such errors or omissions.

8(6) “The pass book shall, as far as possible, be collected from the Post Office Savings Bank by the depositor on the same day on which it is presented to it under sub-rule (4) and where for any reason, the pass book cannot be returned on the same day, the Post Office Savings Bank shall issue a receipt in lieu thereof and such receipt shall be surrendered by the depositor at the time of collecting the pass book on a subsequent date.

8(7) “The Post Office Savings Bank shall not be responsible for any entries in the pass book not authenticated under the initials of authorized official.

            On bare perusal of the above provisions, it is clear from 5(2) of the above rules that each deposit shall be accompanied by a pay-in-slip in the manner prescribed and the counterfoil of the pay-in-slip shall be returned to the tenderer duly receipted after making proper entries in the pass book. On the basis of pay-in-slips the authorized bank official made entries in the pass book as also in the ledger account.

Similarly from 8(7) it is clear, that the Post Office Savings Bank shall not be responsible for any entries in the pass book not authenticated under the initials of authorized official.

13.              Post Office Savings Bank Manual (Volume-I) under the heading of Pass Book in Column No.4, it has been specifically mentioned “The Pass book is for the information of public and there will be no legal liability of the

-9-

department with regard to the balance or transaction shown in the pass book.”

Column no. 27(2) of Post Office Savings Bank Manual is regarding Procedure for Deposits at Branch Offices (Non-RICT):-

“In a Branch Office whenever a deposit is made in an existing account, its particulars should entered by the Branch Postmaster in the Branch Office Savings Bank Journal and on the reverse of the Branch Office daily account. The pay-in-slip should also be attached to the B.O. daily account. The Sub Account Assistant in the Account Office should satisfy himself that the amount of deposit has been credited against item “SB deposits” in the branch office daily account. He should then transfer the pay-in-slip to the SB Counter Assistant.  The Counter Assistant should follow the same procedure as laid down for the acceptance of deposit through transfer mode using relevant menu of CBS Application at the counter and debut BO Settlement Office Account. BPM should accept cash deposit within the limit prescribed by the Department from time to time.”

 

14.             In view of aforesaid provisions contained in above Rules and Manual we find that the entries in the pass book be made by authorized official of the post office after taking cognizance of pay-in-slips for the different amounts deposited by the depositors with the post office and thereafter made entries in the pass book as also in the ledger book. In the case in hand the complainants failed to produce any such pay-in-slips to substantiate that they had deposited the amount as alleged, with the post office. On the other hand they have specifically pleaded that they used to give the amount to one Ashok Patel for depositing the same in their savings account with the post office. In this context, when Ashok Patel did not return the amount they lodged an FIR against him with the police. 

 

-10-

15.              General Instructions for the account holders printed on the passbook itself are as follows:

General Instructions

1. Passbook is a record of transactions for the information of the depositor and balance shown in it cannot be claimed legally.
2. It is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record.
3. Always take a printed receipt from the post office when you hand over the passbook to the post office for any purpose.
4. Always keep the passbook in your personal custody and post office will not be responsible for any loss of money in case passbook is handed over to any other person.
5. Do not keep specimen signatures in the passbook.
6. Check balance after transaction written in the passbook and contact postmaster immediately in case of any discrepancy.
7. …..
8. …..
9. …..
10. …….

 

In view of the aforesaid general instructions printed in the passbook clearly shows that passbook is a record of transactions for the information of the depositor and balance shown in it cannot be claimed legally. It is also the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. Further it has been mentioned that check the balance after transaction written in the passbook and contact postmaster immediately in case of any discrepancy.

16.                In view of the aforesaid, it is duty of the complainants to verify whether the amount given by them to Mr. Ashok Patel was deposited in their account and whether the entries made in the pass book are genuine or not

-11-

and if there was any discrepancy, they ought to have contacted the postmaster immediately. And if they failed to do so, they will have to suffer the consequences, they cannot blame that the post office is liable. Thus, in our considered view for the mistake of complainants themselves, the post office cannot be held liable.

17.              It is also the case of the opposite parties/appellants-post office stated by Shri Sitaram Chourasia, Post Master, Narsinghpur in his affidavit that Ashok Patel was posted as an overseer in Narsinghpur Post Office and he was not authorized to collect and deposit the amount in the savings account of the post office and in this regard, the Post Office lodged an FIR with the police station-Narsinghpur against Ashok Patel for committing fraud with different villagers. It is also the case of the opposite parties-post office that there was no such account of the complainants in any of the post office Dhamtara or Narsinghpur.

18.              Apart both the complainants as also the Post Office have filed
FIR against Ashok Patel and criminal proceedings were initiated and since the outcome of the proceedings is not come, the complaint is not maintainable.

19.              In view of proposition laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices, (supra) it is apparent that

 

-12-

for the fraud involving fake entries in the pass book alone cannot be deemed to constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the post office.

20.              The decision relied by the District Commission in G. Krishna Kumar (supra) is not applicable in the present case as in that case, there was an authorized representative of the Post Office but here in the present case Ashok Patel was not authorized by the Post Office to collect and deposit the amount.  

21.              In view of discussion made above we are of the view that the District Commission has committed error in holding the Post Office deficient in service more particularly when the complainants have contended that they paid amount to Ashok Patel and not deposited in the post office. We are of a considered view that appellants/opposite parties-post office cannot be held liable for the alleged wrongful act of said Ashok Patel. The finding recorded by the District Commission in this respect is against law and fact.

22.              In the result, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants-post office is allowed with no order as to costs.

 

           (A. K. Tiwari)     (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

     Presiding Member          Member                      Member