RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 07-02-2014 in Complaint Case
No.246/2001 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow )
01.Union of India, Through Secretary
Department of Posts
Central Secretariat, New Delhi
02.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
03.Senior Post Master
Chowk Head Post Office
Lucknow
...Appellants
Vs
01.Deep Chand Rastogi
S/o Late Jagannath Prasad
R/o House No. 295/237
Mohalla Asharfabad
Lucknow
02. Smt.Rukhsana Khatoon
R/o Malapuram, Balaganj
Lucknow, Authorized Agent
...Respondents
APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 07-02-2014 in Complaint Case
No.247/2001 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow )
- Union of India
Through Secretary
Department of Posts
Central Secretariat, New Delhi
- Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
- Senior Post Master
Chowk Head Post Office, Lucknow
...Appellants
Vs
01.Deep Chand Rastogi
S/o Late Jagannath Prasad
R/o House No. 295/237
Mohalla Asharfabad, Lucknow
:2:
02. Vimarsha, S/o Raj Kishore Rastogi
R/o 295/237, Mohalla Asharfabad
Lucknow
03. Smt.Rukhsana Khatoon
R/o Malapuram, Balaganj
Lucknow, Authorized Agent
...Respondents
AND
APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2014
(Against the judgment/order dated 07-02-2014 in Complaint Case
No.248/2001 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow )
01.Union of India, Through Secretary
Department of Posts
Central Secretariat, New Delhi
02.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
03.Senior Post Master
Chowk Head Post Office, Lucknow
...Appellants
Vs
01.Deep Chand Rastogi
S/o Late Jagannath Prasad
R/o House No. 295/237
Mohalla Asharfabad, Lucknow
02. Vivek Rastogi
S/o Sri Raj Kishore Rastogi
R/o House No. 295/237
Mohalla Asharfabad, Lucknow
03. Smt.Rukhsana Khatoon
R/o Malapuram, Balaganj
Lucknow, Authorized Agent
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Appellants : Dr. Uday Veer Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/Complainant : Sri Ashok Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3 : None appeared
Dated : 02-02-2018
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
These three appeals have been filed under Section-15 of the
:3:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission against common judgment and order dated 07-02-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in Complaint No.246 of 2001 Deep Chandra Rastogi and another V/s Government of India and 3 others, Complaint No. 247 of 2001 Smt. Rukhmani Devi and others V/s Government of India and 3 others and Complaint No. 248 of 2001 Deep Chandra Rastogi and others V/s Government of India and 3 others whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed all complaints partially. The order passed by District Consumer Forum reads as follows:-
“The complaints are partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.97,040.00 (Rupees Ninety Seven Thousand Forty only) with 9% p.a. interest in Case No. 246/01 and Rs.48,520.00 (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Only) with 9% p.a. interest in Case No. 247/01 and Rs. 48,520.00 (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Only) with 9% p.a. interest in Case No. 248/01 from the date of filing of the complaint till the final payment is made to the Complainants.
In each case the OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
The copies of the judgment shall be placed in Case No. 247/01 and 248/01.”
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum opposite parties No. 1 to 3 of each complaint have filed these three appeals separately for each complaint.
Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants appeared.
Sri Ashok Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants appeared.
None appeared for respondent no.3 who is opposite party No.4 in all complaints.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
All the three complaints have been filed before District Consumer
:4:
Forum by complainants against opposite parties namely Government of India, Through Secretary, Post Telegram Department, Central Secretariat, New Delhi; Senior Superintendent, Post Office, Lucknow Zone, New Hyderabad, Lucknow, Senior Post Master Sir, Chowk, Main Post Office, Lucknow and Smt. Rukhsana Khatoon, R/o Malapuram, Balaganj, Lucknow, Authorized Agent for redressal of grievance arising out of alleged unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawals from their M.I.S. accounts maintained by Chowk Head Post Office, Lucknow by premature closure of accounts.
In each complaint appellants/opposite parties have filed written statement wherein it has been stated that the complainants have withdrawn amounts deposited in each account. They have signed withdrawal applications authorizing opposite party No.4 to receive payment. Appellants/opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.
Opposite party/respondent No.4 has also filed written statement before District Consumer Forum wherein it has been stated that she has no concern whatsoever with payment of M.I.S. account. She has no concern with withdrawals in question.
After having gone through pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has held that the appellants/opposite parties have committed breach of rules in making premature closure of accounts and have made cash payment in violation of departmental instruction. As such the appellants/opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. In view of this conclusion the District Consumer Forum has allowed all complaints partly and passed above order.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the impugned judgment and order is against law as well as evidence.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has further contended that as per Rule/Clause 15 of Saving Bank General Rules the post office saving bank shall not be responsible to a depositor for any fraudulent withdrawal by a person obtaining possession of the passbook or cheque from the depositor.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate and examine the point of
:5:
applicability of Section 229 of the Income Tax Act and direction issued by Ministry of Finance as well as direction issued by Director General of post offices vide its letter dated 19-07-2001 to the department. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the direction was issued by Director General Post in year 2001 and the payment of amounts in question has been made in year 2000 much before direction issued by Director General Post offices.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum to the effect that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service is incorrect.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the payment has been made to the agent of respondent/complainants. As such appellants cannot be ordered to make repayment of the amount. The dispute lies between respondents/complainants and their agent Smt. Rukhsana Begum who was appointee of the State Government. Appellants are not responsible for the acts done by her.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence. The appellant Post Office has not complied legal requirements required by rules in making premature closure and payment of accounts of complainants. As such the appellants have committed deficiency in service and is liable to make payment to the complainants/respondents.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred following case laws.
- Pradeep Kumar V/s Post Master General and others decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 15-05-2015 in Case No.148 of 2001.
- Union of India V/s Shanker Ram and others reported in IV(2010) CPJ 363(NC)
- Ganga Nagar Central Coop. Bank Limited V/s Pushpa Rani and another reported in II(2008) CPJ 19(SC).
- Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s Munimahesh Patel reported in 2006(7) Supreme 156.
:6:
- Synco Industries V/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and others reported in (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1.
- Rakesh Kumar Sharma V/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in II(2014) CPJ 196(NC).
- UCO Bank V/s S. D. Wadhawa reported in III(2013) CPJ 523(NC).
Learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants has referred following case laws.
- Prabhaben Sharma V/s Sub Post Master and others reported in 2010 NCJ 278(NC).
- Narendra Kumar Jain and another V/s Sukumar Chand Jain and other reported in AIsR 1994 Allahabad 1.
- Gaiv Dinshaw Irani and others V/s Tehmtan Irani and others reported in AIR 2014 Supreme court 2326.
- Central Motors (India) Private Limited V/s Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat and another reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429.
- The Postmaster General and others V/s Sri Gautam Sengupta and another decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 04-03-2015 in First Appeal No. FA/1161/2013.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
Respondent No.4 has not filed appeal against impugned judgment and order.
To examine the correctness of finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum against appellants/opposite parties the relevant rules of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 are reproduced below.
Rule-3 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 provides application of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules 1981. It reads as follows:-
“The provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 and the Post Office Savings Account Rules, 1981, so far as may be, apply in relation to matters for which no provision has been made in these rules.”
Rule 10 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules, 1987 deals
:7:
with premature closure of account. It reads as follows:-
“Premature closure of account:- Notwithstanding 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 account is closed after expiry of three years from the date of opening of such account.”
In view of provisions contained in above Rule 10 an application for premature closure of account by depositor is necessary.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred Rule 41 of the Post Office Savings Bank General Rules, 1981 wherein it has been provided that a depositor is required to present or send his passbook with an application for withdrawal SB-7 to withdraw money. But in view of above Rule 10 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 withdrawal form S.B.7 is not an application for premature closure of account.
In the case of Prabhaben Sharma V/s Sub Post Master, Freeland Gunj, Dahod (Gujrat) and others reported in 2010 NCJ 278 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission has held as under:-
“Present cases were clearly cases of premature closure. Hence, in our view, as per Rule 10 a separate application was required for premature closure, which has not been done in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner wishes to rely upon the withdrawal forms (appearing at pages 114 and 123 in RP No. 1280 of 2006 and at page 110 in RP No.1281 of 2006). We have very carefully gone through these documents and find that these forms are not relevant for premature closure for the simple reason that the word ‘PMC meaning thereby ‘Premature Closure’ has been stamped on it. The heading of this form is ‘Withdrawal Form’. Here in the instant cases, we are concerned with ‘Premature Closure’ and not ‘withdrawal’. Thus, in our view, these forms will have no bearing in the merits of these cases.”
In view of proposition laid down by Hon’ble National Commission in the above case it is apparent that application required by Rule 10 of Post Office (Monthly Income Account) Rules 1987 is not covered with withdrawal form SB-7. It requires an application with prayer to make
:8:
premature closure of the account.
Indisputably all withdrawals have been made by premature closure of accounts through withdrawal form S.B.7 without application required by above Rule 10.
Further more the instruction issued by the Directorate of the Department vide letter dated 18-08-1999 provides that payment of above Rs.20,000/- including principal and interest shall be made by account payee cheque and not in cash.
The direction issued by DG Post in year 2001 vide letter dated 28/29-08-2001 is a clarification regarding previous letter dated 18-08-1999 issued by Directorate.
On the basis of this letter dated 28/29-08-2001 it cannot be said that above instruction issued by Directorate vide letter dated 18-08-1999 was kept in abeyance or was in operative. As such, withdrawal in cash from accounts of respondents/complainants is violation of instruction issued by Directorate.
In view of discussion made above I am of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly recorded finding to the effect that the premature closure and final withdrawal of Monthly Income Scheme accounts of complainants/respondents have been permitted by appellant/post office in violation of rules as well as departmental instruction. The finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum in this respect cannot be said to be against law or fact.
Indisputably Rukhshana Begum National Saving Agent is not an appointee of appellant/post office or postal department of Union of India. She has been appointed by State Government. She has received payment as agent of complainants. But the appellant/post office cannot be exonerated from its liability on the ground that the fraud and misappropriation have been committed by National Saving Agent. Deficiency in service committed by Post Office has contributory role in facilitating wrongful act of National Saving Agent. On facts of present case appellant Post Office is not entitled to protection provided in Rule 15 of the Saving Bank General Rules.
I have gone through all the case laws referred by learned Counsel for the appellants. In view of discussion made and conclusion drawn above, on facts of present case, case laws referred by learned Counsel for the
:9:
appellants are not helpful to appellant Post Office.
For reasons recorded above I am of the view that appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellants under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in each appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum alongwith interest if any accrued for disposal in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
This judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 491/2014 with its copy to be laid on the record of other Appeals No. 492/2014 and 493/2014.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
