Date of Order : 28-02-2008 Date of Complaint: 26-03-2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., President (I/c) Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., Member Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2008 C.C.No.33/2007 Between: 1. P.Subramanyam S/o P.Ramakrishna 2. Smt.P.Padmavathi W/o P.Ramakrishna Both are residing at D.No.13/650, P.R.T. Street Dharmavaram Anantapur District. … Complainants Vs. 1. C.Naga Nagendra S/o C.Naga Maddaiah D.No.10/144, Durgamma Temple Street Dharmavaram Anantapur District. 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hindupur. 3. The Head Post Master Head Post Office Dhamravaram Anantapur District. …. Opposite parties This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 18-02-2008 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing, Sri J.Chittaranjan, counsel for the complainant and Sri J.Lakshmi Narasimhulu, counsel for the 1st opposite party and Sri T.Bharath Bhushan Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties 2 & 3 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: O R D E R Delivered by Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member on behalf of the Bench:- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay the deposited amount of Rs.1,13,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a., to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and to grant costs of this complaint and to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is set out as hereunder:- (a) The case of the complainants is that they have deposited amount in Monthly Income Scheme (M.I.S.) through the 1st opposite party in 3rd opposite Party Branch, Dharmavaram in joint names as mentioned below:- Sl.No. | Name of Depositors | Account No. | Date of Deposit | Amount Rs. | 1. | P.Surbramanyam & Smt.P.Padmavathi | 5280 | 16-09-2004 | Rs.1,13,000/- |
The complainants used to withdraw the interest for the above said deposited amount through the 1st opposite party from 3rd opposite party whenever the complainants got doubt about the deposited amount in the above said account and gave a representation on 10-01-2007 to the 3rd opposite party through the brother of the 1st complainant i.e P.Satyanarayana requesting not to issue any amount to the 1st opposite party without permission of the complainants and the Assistant Post Master of the 3rd opposite party acknowledged the same by affixing the rubber stamp and signed on the representation copy of the complainants and gave it to them and the same is nothing but an acknowledgement of the representation. On enquiry of the complainants, the 3rd opposite party said that the above said account number 5280 was withdrawn by the complainants, then the complainants surprised and got astonished and also got shocked. (b) Then, on demand of the complainants, the 3rd opposite party said that the amount of them withdrew on 25-04-2006 itself from the above said account. Ought the complainants withdrawn the above said amount from 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party ought not to have acknowledged the representation of the complainants and the same to have been rejected by the 3rd opposite party for the reason that the accounts were closed already. But here is the case where 3rd opposite party acknowledged the representation of the complainants. 3. The complainants herein demanded the 3rd opposite party for the said amount deposited as they do not want to continue the same because of the deficiency in service and negligence of the 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party denied re-paying the deposited amount as stated in the above that he is not liable for the same stating that the account was closed. Then the complainants came to conclusion that the 3rd opposite party colluded with the 1st opposite party and they might have forged the signature of the complainants and withdrew the deposited amount. They further submitted that the 3rd opposite party violated the Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. Rule of 6 of the said Rules, 1987 clearly says that the payment of maturity value including the interest on MIS Accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by cheque by the Post Offices as provided in section 269-T of the Income Tax Act. 4. Further, the complainants issued a legal notice dt.31-01-2007 that the opposite parties to pay the deposited amount as mentioned above and they are jointly and severally liable for the said amount, because the 1st and 3rd opposite parties were colluded and forged the signatures of the complainants and withdrew the deposited amount. But the 2nd opposite party i.e. the Superintendent of Post Office, being the person responsible for the repayment when under whose jurisdiction the said amount deposited, gave a reply stating that the withdrawal amount was paid to the correct depositors only. The complainants further submitted that as per the Rule 6 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987, the payment on maturity value including the interest on MIS accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by cheque only. In this case, the complainants neither got cheques for the deposited amount as said to be closed of accounts nor received the said deposited amount. The complainants further submitted that they denied all the allegations made in the reply notice of the 2nd opposite party except the fact of depositing the amount as mentioned thereon and also the representation given by them on 10-01-2007. 5. Further, the complainants submitted that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and there is gross negligence on their part. Because, the 3rd opposite party did not pay the deposited amount to the complainants as they feared about the security of their deposited amount. Now, after the reply notice of the 2nd opposite party, the complainants doubt is confirmed and it is enough to prove the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is filed against the opposite parties. 6. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their written version. A memo was filed on behalf of the 2nd opposite party adopting the written version of the 3rd opposite party. The chief affidavit of the 1st complainant was filed on 27-07-2007, whereas chief affidavit of Head Post Master, Dharmavaram (O.P.No.3) was also filed on 27-07-2007. In the objections, in the written version filed on 18-06-2007 on behalf of the 1st opposite party while denying the material averments made in the complaint, it is interalia stated that he (O.P.No.1) never withdrawn interest from the opposite parties 2 & 3 as alleged in the complaint. In fact, the complainants are withdrawing the interest directly from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties and the 1st opposite party is nothing to do with the said transactions. He further submitted that unless and until, the complainants signed in the concerned papers, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties will not pay the amount either to the complainants or to any third parties. The Postal Department will pay the amount to the complainants under valid receipts only. The complainants made a complaint to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties requesting them not to pay the amount to third parties is not known to the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party is nothing to do with the transaction took place between the complainants and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties except the amount depositing through the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party further submitted in his written version that he left Dharmavaram town long back and he is residing at Hyderabad and he is nothing to do with the transactions took place between the complainant and other opposite parties 2 & 3. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The duty of the 1st opposite party is only to join the customers as deposit holders with the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Except the said transaction, the 1st opposite party is nothing to do with the other transactions. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs against the 1st opposite party. 7. As per written version of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the narration of the 1st opposite party about the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant, is quite different. It is therefore, in the written version of the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party admitting the allegation of the complainants that the complainants used to withdraw the interest for the above said deposited amount through the 1st opposite party. The allegation that the complainants came to conclusion that 3rd opposite party colluded with the 1st opposite party and they might have forged the signatures of the complainants and withdrew the said deposited amount is false. The 3rd opposite party further submitted that the complainants used to receive the monthly interest on the amount deposited through the 1st opposite party only. The complainants must check up their pass books every month to see the entries made by the Post Office. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the amount was paid on submitting the withdrawal form duly signed by the complainants only. So, the complainants were silent for more than eight months of the account was closed as they are at fault. The amount was paid to the correct persons and hence the 3rd opposite party is not liable to repay the amount to the complainants. Further, it is submitted finally that as lot of evidence is to be let in, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs. 8. A memo was filed on behalf of the complainants by the learned counsel for the complainants on 23-11-2007 submitting that the complainants are admitting their signatures on the interest withdrawal forms only, but not in closure forms and the wording in the complaint as far as forgery plea concerned of their signatures on the closure forms is only their opinion but not as such plea of forgery. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to treat that there is no such forgery plea in the complaint. 9. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the 1st complainant filed his affidavit on 27-07-2007. The complainants also filed 3 documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the legal notice (Regd. Post with acknowledgement due) dt.31-01-2007 issued to the opposite parties by the complainants advocate. Ex.A2 is the reply letter dt.06-02-2007 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s advocate and Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of the letter dt.10-01-2007 by one P.Satyanarayana, addressed to the 3rd opposite party. 10. In support of the averments made in the written version, the opposite parties filed two documents, which are marked as Ex.B1 & B2. Ex.B1 is the Xerox copy of withdrawal form, which contains the particulars of account bearing No.5280 dt.25-04-2006 and the signatures of the 1st complainant as well as 1st opposite party as a witness to the final transaction and Ex.B2 is the Xerox copy of an application for opening account joint-B bearing No.5280 and it includes introducer’s signature of the 1st opposite party (MIS). 11. Both the counsels have filed their written arguments. The 1st opposite party’s counsel has not filed written arguments. We have heard the oral arguments at length of both sides. The parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their cases and also produced the documents, which are marked as exhibits. 12. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the points that arise for determination are:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 towards the complainants ? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ? If so, to what extent? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1 (a):- The basic facts are not disputed and they are not reproduced herein to avoid a repetition. Here, it is a peculiar case, wherein the postal authorities are not followed the procedure as per the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. This consumer case is one of the batch cases (6) filed against the opposite parties herein on the file of this Forum. It is no doubt that a complaint can be filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of unsatisfactory services. This is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The only question, which requires consideration in this complaint is – whether the opposite parties are liable to reimburse its account holders if the officers of the post office i.e. Post Master or Assistant Post Master, commits deficiency in service and allowed the 1st opposite party to withdraw the amount lying in the account of the complainants, without proper check or authorization. The complainants have deposited the amount in Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) through the 1st opposite party in 3rd opposite party Post Office, Dharmavaram. Ex.B2 is the proof for the same. It is mentioned an account bearing No.5280 in the name of the complainants and the 1st opposite party is the introducer of an application for opening an account by the complainants. The learned advocate Sri J.Chittaranjan appearing on behalf of the complainants argued that time and again he stressed much about violation of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, which he mentioned not only in the complaint, but also in the written arguments in support of his case, but the opposite parties 2 & 3 at last in their written arguments coming up with their stand by interpreting their own meaning suitable for them by way of defence i.e. withdrawal form includes written application. It is not the intention and purpose of the above said Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. (b) The learned counsel for the complainants further argued before us submitting that as usual the 1st opposite party withdrawing the monthly interest from the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the complainants herein. It is the practice of the 1st opposite party to obtain the signatures of the complainants on postal withdrawal forms, in turn submitting them before the 3rd opposite party and used to handover the monthly interest amount accrued on deposits (MIS) to the complainants. The complainants blindly believed the words of the 1st opposite party and handed over the signed postal withdrawals to him, to get monthly interest from the 3rd opposite party. In that process, the 1st opposite party misused the said signed withdrawal forms in order to get wrongful gain and snatched away the entire deposited amount in the Accounts (MIS) with active support and colluded with the 3rd opposite party herein. That is what actually happened. If at all the postal authorities little bit vigilant and it is only on written application of the complainants with regard to premature withdrawal account, if the existing Postal Rules followed by the 3rd opposite party, the situation will be entirely different. Even cheques will be issued, if it is more than Rs.20,000/- in the name of the complainants, the 1st opposite party (Agent) might not have scope for cheating the complainants. That’s why postal authorities, Rules from time to time have been changing to prevent the mis-use of deposited amount of the depositors. Here, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties conveniently enough co-operated the 1st opposite party to do rest of things successfully. When a Rule is specifically says procedure to be followed, if it is other-wise, what it means? It is nothing but cheating the public. Rules are there, to implement and follow but not the discretion of the Postal Officials to act according to their will and pleasure and there is no room for other alternative except to follow the Rules. It is mandatory but not recommendatory. There is no complaint in any Police Station about it. The Public will deposit the amounts in Post Offices and Banks for safety of their money and officials of said institutions, must act as “trustee”, and protector for the public money, but not other-wise. The officials of Post Office (3rd opposite party) must have been more vigilant at least at the time of closing the deposit of amount prematurely by the complainants. They ought to have pressed for complainants’ presence at the time of withdrawal of such huge amounts and it is not the monthly interest of withdrawal usually done by the 1st opposite party in the circumstances of the case. (c) The learned counsel for the complainants argued vehemently in such a manner as stated above, to safeguard the interests of his clients/complainants. He further argued that payment by cheques has become an integral part of commercial dealings. A universally accepted safe and convenient mode of discharging the liability for goods purchased or services hired is by making the payments through cheques. The available system as per the Postal Rules are not followed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence, irreparable loss, damage, mental agony, inconvenience, strain and stress are much caused to the complainants, because of negligent attitude of the 3rd opposite party. It can not be explained in terms of words and the complainants themselves only know the suffering. He also further argued that this series of cases demonstrate the highly unethical and unscrupulous conduct of the opposite parties. The conduct of the opposite parties was not only highly detestable but unparadonable also. Such tendencies have to be curbed with heavy hands by compensating the victims adequately as a deterrent. (d) The learned counsel for the complainants advanced his arguments further by submitting that it is universally admitted that depositors of money for interest are consumers. Consumers are concerned with efficient service for which they pay consideration. Service provider is liable to compensate the consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by him. He further contended that there is no material before this Forum submitted by the opposite parties that Postal Department enquiry and its report about their officials even, for our consideration. Another contention is made by the learned counsel for the complainants that the officials of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties pointed out the mistakes on the part of the complainants and hiding their mis-deeds and their action is malafide and unlawful. Clearly the officials of Postal Department violated the existing Rules provided and they are root cause for entire mis-fortune of the complainants. Who has to blame for this situation and responsible for total negligence of the officials? Now, it is for us to determine who is at fault and provide adequate remedy and to do justice to the parties concerned. Finally while concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the complainants, submitted that nearly since two years the complainants are starving and they are depending on monthly interest on their deposited amount with Post Office. (e) The Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 were framed by Government of India under section 15 of the Government Savings Account Act, 1873. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for applicability of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and Post Office Savings Bank Account Rules, 1981 in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. Under Rule 4 of the Post Office Savings Bank Account Rules, 1981 a deposit account under the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 can be opened by two/three adults in joint names. The third opposite party followed the said Rule while opening an account of the complainants and it is also mentioned introducer’s name i.e. 1st opposite party. It is clear from Ex.B2. The whole crux of this consumer case and determination of it depends upon appreciating the documentary evidence apart from affidavit evidence. The learned advocate Sri T.Bharathbhushana Reddy while arguing a case on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties brought to our notice that the complainants signed on withdrawal form and took away money and after a gap of eight months later approached the 3rd opposite party to pay money. The opposite parties paid money to the correct persons, but not other-wise. (f) To understand and determination of this Consumer Case, it is essential to go through the relevant Rules framed as per Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 as they are under for reference:- (i) Mode of payment:- Postal Department shall pay the amount deposited to the depositors through the cheque only as per the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987. The Rule 6 under the head ‘important orders ‘ of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 says that “ the payment of maturity value including interest on MIS Accounts if it is Rs.20,000/- or more should be paid by cheque only by the Post Offices as provided in section 269-T of the Income Tax Act. “ (ii) Closure of Account:- The Rule 9 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account), Rules, 1987 says “ the deposit made at the time of opening account shall be paid by the Post Office at which the account stands to deposit on or after expiry of six years from the date of the opening the account alongwith bonus equal to 10 percent of the amount deposited, on production of the pass book accompanied by a written application. (iii) Here, it is a pre-mature closure of account:- The Rule 10 of the Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 says “ not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, on an application made by the depositor in this regard, he may be permitted to withdraw the deposit and close the account any time after expiry of a period of one year from the date of opening of such account, subject to the condition that an amount equal to 5 percent of the deposit shall be deducted and remainder paid to him, provided that no such deduction shall be made if the amount is closed after expiry of three years from the date of opening of such account.“ This Rule was pressed into service by the 3rd opposite party while calculating the amount, which was found in Ex.B1. He has not applied his mind while disbursing of the amount by following Rule 6 of the above said Rules. It is not permitted by law to do so in such a hasty manner. (iv) Relying on the above said Rules, the learned counsel for the complainants further argued that the complainants never submitted such an application for premature closure of account to the Postal Department, further to act upon. On close scrutiny of Ex.B1, it is disclosed that calculation of 5% of the deduction of deposited amount made by the 3rd opposite party while writing on the fact on withdrawal form and date mentioned in the counter-foil, there is correction in it. It is apparent on the record. When there are two many corrections in Ex.B1 and the dates are different in it, the 3rd opposite party could not able to notice it, before permitting the 1st opposite party to withdraw such huge amount. It all clearly goes to show that the 3rd opposite party and the 1st opposite party colluded with each other to snatch the entire amount deposited by the complainants. It is against law and Rules have not followed by the 3rd opposite party. It is crystal clear to the naked eye, it does not require much explanation. It is self-explanatory. It speaks for itself. The opposite parties filed Xerox copy but not original for the reasons best known to them. So, the opposite parties 2 & 3 did not follow other Rules. The learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties argued that written application means withdrawal form. But Rule 9 says that written application but not mentioned in it as ‘withdrawal form.’ The said learned counsel of 2nd and 3rd opposite parties admitted and mentioned in written arguments filed that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have not followed the procedure prescribed in Rule 6 of the Post office Rules, which says that the amount if it is Rs.20,000/- or more, should be paid by cheque and herein this case it was paid in cash. It creates a doubt in mind. When a procedure is prescribed to follow, an official of Postal Department should follow it, other-wise, an adverse inference can be drawn under the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the complainants argued that inconsistent statements made by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties in their respective counters that actually 1st opposite party was withdrawing monthly interest from the 3rd opposite party by obtaining signatures of the complainants. It is true even according to the 3rd opposite party. The signature of the 1st opposite party is crystal clear and found in Ex.B1 showing as witness but the 1st opposite party in his counter submitted that he is nothing to do with any transactions by the complainant with the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Hence, the version of the 1st opposite party is false. In view of the above analysis, the citations quoted by the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties do not offer any assistance to support his case. The facts of this consumer case are entirely different and so they are not applicable to the facts of this case. (g) A reading of the version of the opposite parties’ and after hearing the arguments of them and upon perusal of documentary evidence, it is clearly goes to show that they have no defence at all to this complaint. In their version, the opposite parties 2 & 3 boast of the fact that they have promptly made the payment to the complainants. No doubt, they have done the act promptly. But the payment they made was not the payment to the correct persons. Thus, there is utter negligence and indifference in the discharge of duties by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. They have miserably failed to exercise the power conferred on them by way of specific Rules under the said circumstances. Without realizing the grave and serious nature of consequences that such wrong payment can bring serious consequences, the opposite parties have acted which underlines the deliberate indifference and irreconcilable incompetence. Thus, on account of the callous, indifference and deficiency in service of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, the complainants’ family were put to great mental shock and agony and therefore this complaint has been laid by the complainants. It would have caused a lot of mental strain, agony and sorrow in the family, which can not be equated in terms of money. This case is an instance of monumental inefficiency. (h) The crucial question to be considered is whether the evidence on record warranted a conclusion that permitting the agent to withdraw the amount of the depositor was due to any default or willful act of the opposite parties. It is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because of even, the Inspector of Posts, while making enquiry and investigation, did not notice about Ex.B1 and part played by the 3rd opposite party. Ex.B1 is contained the number of corrections with regard to dates on withdrawal form. The 3rd opposite party ought not to have entertained such a withdrawal form for disbursing the amount. He did it in a hasty manner. It is clearly proved. (i) In view of the definition of ‘ service’ and “ deficiency” in sections 2(1)(o) and 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency in service can not be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or other-wise in relation to any service. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service. (j) It appears that the opposite parties had adopted a dogmatic, diffident and unhelpful approach and more-over negligent in their attitude towards the complainants. We could not have come across a better case of fraud committed by a Post Office at Dharmavaram on bonafide depositors than the case on hand. We want to make this consumer case an exemplary case and eye-opener for every civic body, public authority, Government organization etc., who are engaged in the service for the public at large and also who are duty bound and have the obligations of maintaining service properly, other-wise, they have to be dealt with strictly and punished for the offence of deficiency in service as defined under section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. (k) The complainants may not be able to indicate the loss or damages suffered by them and it is for the Consumer Forum, which is vested with powers to grant appropriate compensation and even can grant reliefs not prayed for by the complainants provided the same are justified on merits. Being the protector of the interests of the consumers, this Forum can not be a silent spectator of the adamant attitude on the part of the opposite parties. If such an act is allowed then the relevance of the legal institutions and the court system would be first causality. (l) If really as contended by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties everything had been done as per the Rules, then its escapes one’s comprehension as to why no letter (written application at the time of premature closure of account) was taken from the complainants at the Post Office, Dharmavaram. Further, the 2nd opposite party had not conducted a proper enquiry and had not taken action against the person responsible for the dereliction of duty. The Rules are clear to the effect that payments are not made to the complainants intentionally then the persons responsible should be answerable. Even according to Ex.A2 reply letter dt.06-02-2007 of the 2nd opposite party namely Sri T.Chandramouli Raju to the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned counsel for the complainants further argued that Smt.Swathimadhurima, Inspector of Posts, Dharmavaram, Sub-Division did not make thorough enquiry with regard to questioning of Post-Master, Dharmavaram i.e. 3rd opposite party about not following the said Rules while disbursing the amounts to the depositors. What action said Inspector of Posts has taken against erring official i.e. Post Master Sri P.C.Venkatesulu for his dereliction of duty. It is crystal clear in Ex.A2. All officials of Postal Department are responsible for this entire episode. In the circumstances of the case, it can be said that all of them colluded alongwith 1st opposite party. He is the Small Amounts Savings Agent. According to him, he is nothing to do with all the transactions between the complainant and 3rd opposite party. It is not correct in view of Ex.B1 document. Nobody will aspire for double payment that to with Central Government agency i.e. Post Office. No harm will be done to anybody, if Rules are followed. It is all due to inefficiency and negligence of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties but nothing else. (m) Under section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Consumer Forums are conferred with powers not only to award compensation for the negligence but also to award punitive damages. It is to be remembered that proceedings before the Consumer Forum are inquisitorial and not adversary. The orders are required to be passed in accordance with justice and equity on the basis of the evidence available on record. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for the protection of the consumers and matters are required to be decided by having rationale approach and not technical one. This is made clear in Indian Photographic Co. Ltd., Vs. H.D. Shourie , 1999(6) SCC 428. (n) At the time of oral arguments on behalf of the complainants that an important and relevant case brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the complainants for applicability of Rule of Law to the facts of the present case, which was delivered by our National Commission in a case of Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Garg, reported in 2002(3) C.P.J. 255 N.C. The facts- in-brief : the respondents had deposited a sum of Rs.24,601.37 in the name of their daughters in the Post Office and also paid additional amount to make it Rs.25,000/-. At the time of maturity when they demanded back their money, they were told that they deposited only Rs.500/- . The account of the respondents was opened by the agent of the Post Office for the National Savings Scheme and the Post Office denied its liability. It took the stand that the amount had been embezzled and the criminal case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The District Forum by majority order dismissed the complaint though the President of the Forum, who was in minority held that the complaint should be allowed. In appeal, the State Commission rightly set aside the order of the majority of the District Forum and directed that Rs.25,000/- be paid to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.a. because even if the amount had been embezzled by the agent or employee of the Post Office, the respondents could not be made to suffer. This Forum/court is exercising sovereign function of dispensation of justice. Law on the subject is well settled. The ratio is laid down in the above case is securely covered and applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is clear that for the mistake, negligence of the Official of Post Office, Dharmavaram (O.P.No.3), the complainants herein could not be made to suffer and already they are surviving without monthly interest since two years i.e. from 2006 onwards till today. It is no longer justifiable to make further delay and justice is to be done to the complainants in view of the circumstances of the case. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that it is a case where the negligence of the opposite parties is rampant and it speaks for itself. (o) So far as the negligence of the opposite parties is concerned, we have already recorded a finding that non-payment to the complainants as per Rules was due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. So far as awarding punitive damages is concerned, Forums are required to take into consideration the conduct of the persons while doing their duty. In such a situation, it is for the Post Office to establish that its officers have acted in good faith and without negligence. Hence, in our view, there is no substance in the contentions of the opposite parties. Therefore, taking all these facts into consideration, we hold that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties including Inspector of Posts, Dharmavaram, Sub-Division are liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the complainants. This awarding of compensation to the extent of Rs.10,000/- in our view should be a message to other Post office officials. It is to be borne in mind that in most of the cases consumers invest their hard earned money, may be either retirement benefits or their life savings to get shelter and in some cases, after retirement. All the depositors in any financial institutions must be cautious always and they should not believe middle men. They must verify the entries in pass books issued by the financial institutions from time to time to avoid a pathetic situation thereafter. (p) In these set of circumstances, it is apparent that there is negligence in discharging of duties by the opposite parties herein by showing irrelevant reasons and deficiency in service for which the opposite parties are required to pay adequate compensation to the complainants herein. In our view, this would amount to unfair trade practice which is required to be controlled by the higher ups the negligence and dereliction of duties of the opposite parties happened in this case not only frustrates the purpose of depositing of the amount under MIS and the depositors may lose confidence in administration of the opposite parties and it ruins the depositors welfare. We are of the considered view that awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainants would meet the ends of justice. We find considerable substance in the submissions made on behalf of the complainants by the learned counsel. It is well settled that compensation can be quantified only on rationale basis on consideration of documentary and/oral evidence produced showing the extent of loss suffered by the consumer/complainants for the negligence of the opposite parties. In our view Rs.10,000/- only as compensation will be an adequate compensation for the loss and mental anxiety and agony to the complainants. For the facts stated above, it is clear that the 3rd opposite party acted negligently in permitting the 1st opposite party to withdraw the said amount. This resulted in total loss to the complainants. It is a clarificatory in nature without a doubt. This makes it very crystal clear that this Consumer Forum is an appropriate authority before whom consumers can agitate their grievance. In human affairs, disputes are likely to arise since, conflict of interest is part of life. The principles of natural justice are found on fairness, a right to be heard and dealt with fairly. The duty of court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be (a) whether a decision – making authority exceeded its powers; (b) Committed an error of laws (c) Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice (d) reached a decision, which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or (e) abused its powers. If the decision making body is influenced by considerations, which ought not to influence it; or fails to take into account, the court will interfere. Justice is an attribute of human conduct. Law, as a social engineering, is to remedy existing imbalances, as a vehicle to establish an egalitarian social order in a Socialistic Secular Bharath Republic. (q) Section 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for adequate compensation would certainly mean that the complainants, who are deprived of the benefit, which they are entitled for two years together, they should be adequately compensated. Measure for adequate compensation can be a lump-sum amount, may be a reasonable rate of interest by way of damages. (r) In our view, this is a fit case in which the law laid down by the Apex Court is required to be applied with full vigour and in true spirit. The citizens of a Socialist Democratic Republic should not feel helplessness against undesirable functioning in the Government or Semi-Government officers. Because of such harassment crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance, or putting in other words, succumb to the pressure of undesirable functioning of the officers instead of standing against this. This part succinctly discussed by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, III (1993) C.P.J. 7 (SC) = (1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263 in the following words “ Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook.” Further, in the aforesaid “ Lucknow Development Authority (supra) case, the Apex Court has observed that in appropriate cases the Commission should direct the concerned authority to recover some amount of compensation from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary. “ We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. We are satisfied that it is a fit case wherein we have to give the reliefs to the complainants. All the exhibits marked on behalf of the complainants will clearly go to show that the reliefs sought for by the complainants can be said to be totally justifiable under the circumstances of the case. So, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is therefore necessary that the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- is payable to the complainants from the public fund immediately, but to recover the same from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately when there are more than one functionaries. This point is accordingly answered. 14. POINT NO.2:- In view of the point No.1 as discussed above and taking all the aspects into consideration, we are of the opinion that it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirteen thousand only) being the MIS Deposited amount covered under MIS Account bearing No.5280 of the complainants in the 3rd opposite party Post Office, Dharmavaram payable from the date of complaint i.e. 26-03-2007 with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization to pay a sum of rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. We, therefore, find that the complainants are entitled to the amount of Rs.1,13,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirteen thousand only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 26-03-2007, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. This point is accordingly answered. 15. POINT NO.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirteen thousand only) jointly and severally being the MIS deposited amount covered under an account bearing No.5280 of the complainants in the 3rd opposite party payable from the date of complaint i.e. 26-03-2007 with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of realization, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainants within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is further directed that Post Office authorities shall fix the responsibility of the officers by holding enquiry, who are responsible for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) awarded by this Forum for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants shall be recovered from such officers proportionately from their salary. This point is answered accordingly. A copy of this order, as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge. Copy is sent to all leading National Dailies, Press for appraising the Post Offices and its deposit-holders about their rights and obligations. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on 28th day of February, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT (I/c) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANTS : - NIL - OPPOSITE PARTIES: - NIL - EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Legal notice dt.31-01-2007 issued to the opposite parties by the complainants advocate. Ex.A2 - Reply letter dt.06-02-2007 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant’s advocate. Ex.A3 - Xerox copy of the letter dt.10-01-2007 by one P.Satyanarayana, addressed to the 3rd opposite party. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES Ex.B1 - Xerox copy of withdrawal form. Ex.B2 - Xerox copy of an application for opening account joint-B bearing No.5280. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT (I/c) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha | |
