Delhi

North East

CC/43/2015

Mange Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deptt. Of Post Office - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.43/15

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Mange Ram R/o C 1/232, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Department of Posts O/o Senior Postmaster Indraprastha Head Post Office New Delhi-110002   Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan New Delhi 110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

30.01.2015 17.01.2023 07.03.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the he opened an account in the Indraprastha, Head Post office and deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-. The said account was in his name and Shri Sunil Kumar Dixit and it was Monthly Income Scheme Account (MIS). This account was opened in the month of November 2003. The account no. was 951843 and the passbook was signed by Assistant Postmaster (SB Branch Indraprastha HPO, New Delhi. As advised he also opened a saving account no. 14595 and this was opened for crediting the monthly interest of the MIS account. Interest of Rs. 5,335/- per month was credited in the said saving account in the month of December 2003, January 2004, February 2004, March 2004 and April 2004 and thereafter no interest was credited in her saving account. The matter was reported to the Chief Postmaster Indraprastha HPO, New Delhi, Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle, New Delhi and also to the Secretary, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. The Complainant several times visited the office of Opposite Party No. 1 for releasing the payments of the aforesaid MIS account but nothing was done. The Complainant made representation dated 28.09.2004, 18.10.2004 and 18.12.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi. A legal notice dated 13.10.2009 was sent to the Opposite Party under section 80 of CPC.   Thereafter, the Complainant came to know that in fact the MIS account was opened in the name of Sharda Mediratta with an amount of Rs. 36,000/- on 10.12.2003 and saving account was opened in the name of some other person and not in his name. As per the case of Complainant some enquiry was also conducted by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for releasing the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for mental tension and agony.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed joint written statement.  It is submitted by the Opposite Parties that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the material facts. It is alleged that after receiving the complaint from the Complainant an enquiry was made in the matter and it was revealed that the Complainant had given Rs. 8,00,000 to one Smt. Anita Aggarwal , SAS Agent RD 2051 for opening two MIS accounts. The SAS Agents are appointed by National Saving Institute and they work directly under the control of Finance Ministry. It is alleged that the agent did not deposit the said amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the post office but handed over the fake MIS passbook to the Complainant. The original passbooks are reported to be lost and the same were misused by Smt. Anita Aggarwal.  The Opposite Parties have denies the averments of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Parties

4. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. To support its case Opposite Parties has filed affidavit of C. Jaya Rami Reddy posted as Senior Postmaster posted at Indra Prastha Head Post Office, New Delhi-110002. In his affidavit, he has supported the case of Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has opened one MIS account with Opposite Party No. 1 in the month of November 2003 and he also opened a saving account in the said post office where the interest of MIS account was to be credited. As per his case, interest for the months of December 2003 to April 2004 was deposited but thereafter no interest was deposited nor his principal amount was released. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant has handed over the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to one Smt. Anita Aggarwal who was an SAS Agent and she was working under the control of Ministry of Finance. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that Smt. Anita Aggarwal has mis-appropriated the money and forged the passbook of the Complainant. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties and as such they have no liability.
6. The case of the Complainant is that the account was opened in the post office itself. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Parties is that the Complainant handed over the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to Smt. Anita Aggarwal SAS agent. It is important to note that the C. Jaya Rami Reddy who has filed affidavit of evidence has not stated anywhere in the affidavit that the said account was not opened in the post office or that the amount was not paid to the official in the post office. It is further important to note that from the perusal of his affidavit it is not clear that whether the affidavit has been filed by C. Jaya Rami Reddy on the basis of personal knowledge or on the basis of record. He has nowhere stated in his affidavit at the time of opening the account he was posted in the Post Office where the account was opened. Thus, from the perusal of his affidavit it can be said that neither he has personal knowledge of the case nor he has deposit on the basis of the record. In the case of the Opposite Parties is that Smt. Anita Aggarwal has forged the signature on the passbook whereas the case of the Complainant is that the passbook was signed by Assistant Postmaster. However, no affidavit has been filed of the concerned Assistant Postmaster that the passbook was not signed by him. Therefore this plea cannot be believed.
7. As discussed above, it is held that the Complainant has deposited the money in the Post office itself and the passbook was issued by the Post Office.  A customer is not supposed to know whether the person sitting at the counter is employee of the Post office or some agent of the Opposite Party. The customer believes that he is doing transaction with the employee of the Posts Office. Therefore, the Post Office cannot avoid its responsibility simply by saying that the concerned official was not its employee and was some agent and it does not have any control over the agent. In all the circumstances the interest of the innocent customers have to be guarded.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has handed over the amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the person who was working/sitting in the post office and under the circumstances the Complainant was made to believe that the person with whom he was doing transaction was an employee of the post office. We are also of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they did not take any precautions to  make the public aware that some agents are sitting in their Post Office and therefore the public should do transaction with them after verification.
9. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from May 2004 till recovery of the amount. The Opposite Parties shall also pay jointly and severally compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. 
10. Order announced on 07.03.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President