Oral
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No. 1715 of 2010
1- Union of India through CPMG, UP
Circle Lucknow.
2- The Sub Post Master, Sub Post Office,
Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli. …Appellants.
Versus
1- Chhote Lal Yadav s/o Late Ramji Yadav,
2- Achhe Lal Yadav s/o Late Ramji Yadav,
3- Raj Kumar Jaiswal s/o Late Baijnath,
4- Urmila Devi w/o Rakesh Kumar,
5- Raj Kuamr s/o Late Baijnath,
6- Rajesh Singh s/o Lachiman,
7- Paras Nath s/o Lachiman,
All resident of Dharamshala Road, Mughal Sarai,
District, Chandauli.
8- Smt. Santra Devi w/o Shri Ram chandar Yadav,
Agent, Sub Post Office, Mughal Sarai, Chandauli.
9- Smt. Reeta Devi w/o Rajnarain Yadav,
Agent, Sub Post Office, Mughal Sarai, Chandauli.
…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.
Sri Sunil Sharma, Ld. counsel for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
Date 30.7.2024
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Chandauli in complaint case no.88 of 2003, whereby the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the defendant/appellants to pay the amount deposited by the complainants in the post office.
As per the case of the complainants, they opened savings recurring deposit accounts in their respective names for depositing different sum of amount. These accounts were opened from the agents but when the respondents wanted to withdraw the amount from their account, it was found that the amount shown in the pass-book was not entered in the ledger of the post-office. The ld. District Consumer Forum upon appreciation of the evidence concluded that the amount given to the agents of the appellants, the complainants are entitled to receive the amount payable on the date of maturity.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the persons who received the amount from the complainants/respondents were not the agent of the appellants. Hence, the appellants are not responsible for their conduct.
During the course of argument, ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that the post-office has lodged FIR under section 406/409 IPC against those persons who recovered the amount form the complainants.
Lodging of FIR from the appellant’s side, this fact was admitted by the appellants that accused persons recovered the amount from the complainants and the same was not deposited in the ledger book of the post office.
The ld. counsel for the appellant relied upon the case, Union of India & anr. vs. Shanker Ram, 2011 NCJ 242 (NC). We have gone through the fact of the case and the findings given by the Hon’ble NCDRC. The Hon’ble NCDRC itself allowed the complaint upto the extent that the complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by them. Although, the interest for reinvestment period was not allowed by the Hon’ble NCDRC.
In the case in hand, the complainants never claiming the interest on the reinvestment period of the amount, they are simply claiming the amount payable on the date of maturity. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the ld. District Consumer Forum. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer Forum concerned as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sudha Upadhyay) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
