Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/123

ParamjitSingh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Postmatser - Opp.Party(s)

Gursewak Singh Adv

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  123 dated 10.03.2021.                                                       Date of decision: 05.06.2024. 

 

Paramjit Singh S/o. Pritam Singh, R/o. House No.389,  Street No.4, Nandi Colony, Lalherhi Road, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
2. The Superintendent, Muffasil Division, Ludhiana.
3. The Head Postmaster, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gursewak Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is retired from department of R.M.S. of the OPs and on 23.03.2020, he approached the OP office at Khanna for opening senior citizen account in order to secure his life saving and retirement earning/money with the OPs who run various schemes for senior citizens. The complainant filed the requisite forms and submitted the same along with cheque of Rs.15 Lakh at counter No.5. The concerned employee of OP3 asked the complainant to wait for some time and also asked to collect the passbook later on after receiving message to collect the passbook but the complainant did not receive any message on 23.03.2020. The complainant stated that on 09.04.2020, he approached Khanna Post Office to collect the passbook personally and enquire about the fate of his account and his deposited money but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Then the complainant visited OP2 who also asked him to wait and delayed the matter to cover up the wrong doing of concerned employees. The complainant further stated that he visited H.P.O. Khanna so many times but did not receive any response. On 20.04.2020, the complainant again visited OP3 and brought the matter into notice of A.P.M. Madam then he came to know that his cheque of Rs.15 Lakh given along with account opening form on 23.03.2020 was still lying on the table and the cheque was cleared on 22.04.2020 regarding which he received a message on 24.04.2020. However, his account No.4783299538 and account No.4783297121 were opened after a delayed period of one month due to negligence of the OPs and their employees. The complainant further stated that on 23.03.2020, at the time of availing facility of opening account and depositing the amount, the rate of interest with the OPs was 8.6% but due to delay on the part of OP3, the rate of interest on 22.04.2020 was reduced to 7.4% and the complainant claimed to have suffered loss of more than Rs.1 Lakh of interest on his savings due to unprofessional conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the employees of the OPs.

                   The complainant further stated that he also availed N.S.C. scheme through OP3 by investing amount through an agent on 22.05.2020 and the account was opened on the same date which shows that there is nexus between the agents and employees of the department of the OPs. The complainant suffered loss of interest on amount of Rs.15 Lakh due to delay on the part of the OPs. The complainant sent many E-mails to redress his grievance but no response was given. Even the complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.11.2020 to the OPs but to no effect. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- due to loss of interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of causing harassment besides paying Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed joint written statement and assailed by complaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complaint being barred for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct; the complaint being an abuse of process of law; lack of jurisdiction; suppression of material fact etc. The OPs stated that a proper reply to notice of the complainant was sent by them on 10.12.2020 and as such, the complainant is guilty of suppression of true and material facts.

                   On merits, the OPs averred that as per statement of their counter clerk on 23.03.2020, he collected the cheque and account opening form from the complainant and told him to collect the passbook after clearing the cheque of Rs.15,00,000/-. After the counter work, the check list was prepared by him for forwarding to clearing house but due to curfew, the said cheque could not be sent to clearing house immediately. The accounts were opened immediately on clearance after situation become normal after curfew as on 23.03.2020, Punjab Govt. announced curfew due to which nothing could be processed and no transaction took place after 23.03.2020. Further the customer account could have immediately been opened through post office saving bank account transfer on 23.03.2020 itself but the complainant preferred to open through cheque which could not be processed due to curfew in whole of Punjab after 23.03.2020. The OPs further stated that the money of the complainant remained in the bank and was transferred in post office account on 22.04.2020 after clearance of the cheque. The complainant has been demanding interest on rate of interest admissible prior to 31.03.2020 but the amount was credited in the post office account on 22.04.2020 for which they are not liable to pay interest for the period during which the money remained in the bank of the complainant. Moreover, there was no working in the post offices till 31.03.2020 and the rate of interest was revised w.e.f. 01.04.2020.  There is no fault on the part of the OPs as not even a single cheque was cleared from 24.03.2020 to 14.04.2020 and only after relaxation given by the Punjab Govt., the cheques were cleared. As such, the complainant has not suffered any loss due to any such alleged act of the OPs. The delay if any was caused due to imposition of curfew due to pandemic of COVID-19. The Ops further stated that the complaint of the complainant was considered by their department and enquiry was marked to enquiry authority. Even the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied by them. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 are the copies of passbook of accounts; Ex. C3 is the copy of NSC, Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 are the copies of E-mails, Ex. C8 is the copy of complaint moved to Chief Postmaster General, Chandigarh, Ex. C9 is the copy of complaint dated 17.08.2020 moved to Sr. Accounts Officer (SB), Chandigarh, Ex. C10 is the copy of RTI application, Ex. C11 is the copy of enquiry report dated 06.08.2020, Ex. C12 is the copy of statement of complainant in enquiry, Ex. C13 is the copy of statement of Bittu, employee of the OPs in enquiry, Ex. C14 is the statement of Charanjit Kaur, employee of OPs in enquiry, Ex. C15 is the copy of statement of Sumit Raman, employee of OPs in enquiry, Ex. C16 is the copy of statement of Jagdish Singh, employee of OPs in enquiry, Ex. C17 is the copy of legal notice dated 05.11.2020, Ex. C18 to Ex. C20 are the postal receipts, Ex. C21 is the copy of reply to legal notice dated 10.12.2020 and closed the evidence.                    

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Narinder Singh, Supdt. of Post Offices, Ludhiana (MF) Division, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavit produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Admittedly, on 23.03.2020, the complainant approached OP3 for opening Senior Citizen Savings Scheme Account along with requisite documents and a cheque of Rs.15,00,000/- and presented with the dealing hand. According to the complainant, at that time interest @8.6% per annum was prevailing on such scheme. Ultimately, the cheque was encashed on 22.04.2020 and the complainant received a message of clearance on 24.04.2020 that the account under the said scheme has been opened. In the meantime w.e.f. 01.04.2020, the rate of interest was revised and it was reduced from 8.6% per annum to 7.4% per annum and according to the complainant, the delay of one month in opening the account has caused a loss of Rs.97,307/- in five year scheme.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant submitted the details of projected loss due to reduction in rate of interest, which is reproduced as under:-

“Account open dated 23.03.2020 (5 Years interest 8.6%)                 645000.00

But Account open dated 24.04.2020 (5 Years Interest 7.4%)   555000.00

Difference                                                                                90000.00

One Month Account Late Open Interest                                   10750.00

Rs.15,00,000/- One Month SBI Bank A/c Interest                       3443.00

LOSS                                                                                       97307.00”

 

8.                The complainant also lodged a complaint Ex. C8 addressed to Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Sector 17, Chandigarh for harassment and financial loss in the opening of account on identical allegations. The matter was got enquired and Ex. C11 is the enquiry report. The enquiry report concluded as under:-

“From the above inquiry and statements, it is cleared that Sh. Paramjit Singh had submitted cheques worth Rs.15 lakh for opening his SCSS accounts, which could not be presented on 23.03.2020 due to technical fault in cheque machine and further curfew/lockdown. Sh. Sumit Raman and Bittu could not attend the office till 15.04.2020 and complainant Sh. Paramjit Singh was inquiring about his accounts from Sh. Jagdish Singh. But Jagdish Singh did not give him satisfactory reply although he was aware about the situation that the cheques had not been cleared. The cheque could not be presented for the period 23.03.2020 to 15.04.2020 when Sh. Sumit Raman was on leave. It was the duty of postmaster and treasurer (working between 23.03.2020 to 15.04.2020) to get the machine repair and submit the cheque for clearance, which could not be done. Sh. Jagdish Singh also harassed Sh. Paramjit Singh knowing the fact that cheques could not presented due to technical fault.”

 

9.                This Commission can take judicial notice of the fact that due to spread of COVID-19, the competent authorities imposed curfew like restriction and the normal working of the offices, commercial establishment, shops etc. came to grinding halt. The documents were presented on 23.03.2020 and in normal course, cheque was to be sent to drawee bank through clearance and it was likely to take 1 or 2 days. In all official transactions      where ever a cheque is presented, initiation of process is always subject to clearance of cheque. So at the first instance, the account of the complainant could not have been opened on the day of presentation i.e. 23.03.2020. The account was opened on reopening of offices due to relaxation in COVID restrictions. It is a fit case of doctrine of “Force Majeure” which can be invoked and no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs.

10.              The initial burden of proving deficiency in service on the part of the OPs was upon the complainant which he has failed to discharge by way of any cogent and convincing evidence.           In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. "6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming 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 otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent." 20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

"28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service."

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.06.2024.

Gobind Ram.