West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/110/2015

Rabindra Nath Bhui - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amitava Kar - Opp.Party(s)

Suravi Barik

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member. 

and 

   Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.110/2015

 

Rabindra Nath Bhui, S/o-Late Kumud Bandhu Bhui, Vill.-Raghunathpur,

P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, District - Paschim Medinipur.

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Amitava Kar (Agent of Raghunathpur Sub-P.O.), S/o-Monoranjan Kar, Vill-Raghunathpur, P.S.-Jhargram, Dist- Paschim  Medinipur
2. Bablu Shit, S/o-Sudhir Shit, used to work like an Agent at Raghunathpur Sub-P.O., resident of Vill-Old Jhargram, P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, District - Paschim Medinipur

             3)  Kanailal Sing (Ex-Post Master), S/o-Ganesh Sing, Vill.-Raghunathpur,

                    P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, District - Paschim Medinipur

             4)  Nirmal Maity (Ex-Post Master), Vill.-Raghunathpur, P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram,                     

                   District - Paschim Medinipur

     5) Sukumar Shit (Oversease of Jhargram Head Post Office), residing at Jhargram Head

                    Post Office, P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, District - Paschim Medinipur

             6) Rahul Haldar (Inspector of Jhargram Head Post office) residing at Jhargram head Post 

                   Office, P.O. & P.S.-Jhargram, District - Paschim Medinipur

             7) Sr. Superintendent, Post Offices, Midnapore Division, P.O.-Midnapore, P.S.-Kotwali, 

                   Dist-Paschim Medinipur

             8) Assistant Director of Postal Service, office of Chief Post Master General, West Bengal

                  Circle, Kolkata-12

             9) Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata-12

                                                                                           .....……….….Opp. Parties. 

Contd…………………..P/2

( 2 )

                                                   

              For the Complainant: Mrs. Surabhi Barik, Advocate.

             For the O.P.                : Mr. Alak Mondal, Mr. Diptendu Ghosh, Mr. Sukumar Parya &

                                                  Mr.Susil Ranjan Jana, Advocate.

                                                           

                                                                                          Date of filing : - 28/09/2015.

Decided on: -27/02/2018

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –

              Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

                       Complainant is a retired employee and he resides permanently at Jhargram. Complainant had much faith and confidence upon the Postal Organization and he deposited his hardearned money in Raghunathpur Post Office in Term Deposit Scheme, KVP and NSC etc.  He also opened a  S.B. A/C no.1443252 of Rs.5,000/-along with wife

Smt. Jharna Bhuia. O.P. No.1 & 2 used to work as agent and sub-agent of post office and they used to obtained signatures on withdrawal and deposit slip of the complainant and his wife as per direction of O.P. no.3 to 6. O.P. no.1 to 6 hatched out a conspiracy to grab the money of the complainant and other customers by means of forgery, cheating and by adoping different illegal means. It is stated that regular deposits in Raghunathpur  P.O. were made through O.P. no.1 & 2  in consultation with O.P. no.3 to 6. Maturity value of KVP and NSC of Rs.1,50,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/- were paid for opening Term Deposit in the name of the complainant. Thereafter Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- were also transferred to the S.B. A/c of the complainant as maturity proceeds of KVP and NSC and those were withdrawn for opening Term Deposit Scheme in the name of the complainant. Besides that, the complainant had Rs.2,89,000/- in his savings A/c. On thorough enquiry, it was found that only Rs.1,50,000/- was lying in only Term Deposit and there was no existence of other Term Deposit in computer record. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.10,39,980/- of the complainant had been withdrawn by the O.Ps. by putting false signature, manufacturing false documents and seal and thereby misappropriating public money. Thereafter on the basis of complaint, filed by the complainant, Jhargram P.S. case no. 71/2015 dated 03/04/2015 u/ss-465, 467, 468, 420, 406, 409 and 120b of IPC was started and the O.Ps. were arrested by the police in that case. O.P. no 4-Nirmal Maity, as Sub-Post Master also lodged a complaint against O.P. no.1 & 2 on basis of which Jhargram P.S. case no.132/14 dated 31/07/2014 u/ss 420 and 406 of IPC was started. The complainant had gone to the office of the O.P.nos.7 to 9 again and again and they assured

Contd…………………..P/3

                                                            

                                                                                                ( 3 )

to  return the said amount but  till now they did nothing. However on 21/07/2015, on basis of the prayer of the complainant, Postal Department has paid Rs.2,94,599/- in the savings A/c of the complainant but the said amount has also been withdrawn by the O.P. no.1. Hence the complaint, praying for an order so that the complainant may get back his hard-earned  money along with interest and for an award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

   All the O.Ps. have contested this case by filing separate written versions.                                           

   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant it is the specific case of the O.P.  nos.1 and 2, as made out in their separate written versions that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant is not the consumer under C.P. Act. It is stated by the O.P.  nos.1 and 2 that they are not connected with the  alleged fraud and they never withdrawn any money from the post office on behalf  of the complainant. O.P. no.1 and 2  therefore pray dismissal of the complaint with cost against them.

Denying and disputing the case of the complainant it is the specific case of the O.P. no.3 and 4 that the present case is not maintainable and the allegation made in the petition of complaint is false, vague, malafide and irrelevant and the case should be dismissed with cost.

By filing a joint written version, O.P. nos. 5 and 6 have stated that the present case is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer of O.P. nos. 5 & 6 and he therefore cannot get any relief against them. It is specifically stated by the O.P. nos. 5 and 6 that they were not posted in Jhargram Sub Post Office during the period in which the complainant alleged about opening of his accounts. It is also stated that O.P. nos. 5 and 6 were not the issuing and disbursing authority of any S.B. Account and T.D. A/C and they have no nexus and knowledge about the existence and transaction of the disputed accounts. O.P. nos. 5 and 6 therefore pray dismissal of the complaint with cost.

By filing a separate joint written version, O.P. nos. 7 to 9 have specifically stated that present case is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer and the complainant has also not made out any case of deficiency of service against their O.Ps. It is stated that the complainant claimed to have entrusted Op. Nos. 1& 2 with his so called investments but as per post office record, such alleged investments did not flow in the Govt. account.  The postal department is no way related to Ops. 1 & 2 and direct or indirect involvement of post office staff in c/w those accounts.  Op. nos. 7 to 9 therefore claim dismissal of the complaint against them.

To prove his case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering an written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 3 respectively and another document was  marked X for identification.   

                   Contd…………………..P/4                                                       

    

                                                                                                ( 4 )

                 O.P. no. 1 Sri Amitava Kar has examined himself as OPW-1 by tendering written examination-in-chief.

On behalf of Op. nos.7 to 9, one Ekesh Kumar was examined as OPW-2 by tendering written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, few documents were marked as exhibits A to C respectively.

No other witness has been examined by any other Ops.

Points for decision       

             Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Has the complainant cause of action to file this case ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

                     All the O.Ps. in their respective written versions have categorically stated that the present case is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer and  that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of provisions of C.P. Act. On plain reading of the  petition of complaint, we find that the complainant himself has made out a case of fraud, criminal conspiracy, breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of his money against the O.Ps. All those allegations are criminal in nature and the petition of complaint discloses no case so as to attract the provision of the C.P. Act.  There is also no whisper in the petition of complaint regarding allegation of deficiency of service against the O.Ps. We have therefore no hesitation to hold that the present petition of complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act and the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint under C.P. Act against the present O.Ps.  particularly when it appears from the petition of complaint as well  as from the evidence of the complainant that specific criminal  cases have already been initiated against some of the O.Ps. regarding the allegation of fraud,  criminal conspiracy and forgery.

                There two points are accordingly decided in the negative and against the complainant.

Point no.3:-

                 In view of our above finding, the complainant in not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.

                 All the points are accordingly decided.

   In the result, the complaint case fails.

Contd…………………..P/5                                                           

    

                                                                             ( 5 )

           

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                           that the complaint case no.110/2015  is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. but in the circumstances without cost.

                                    Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

          Dictated and Corrected by me

                    

                        President                       Member                     Member                   President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur