Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 360
Instituted on : 30.06.2021
Decided on : 26.10.2023
Shekhar Sharma, Advocate S/o Sh. Subhash Chander R/o H.No.349, Sector-6, Rohtak.
......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Head Post Master, Post Office, Rohtak.
- Maya Devi agent No.032936 Head Post Office, Rohtak.
- Santosh 451/4, Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
- Jyoti 456/4, Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
- Chanchal 451/4, Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
- Amita 456/11 Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
- Rajwanti R/o Village-Mayna, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
- Usha Rani R/o 451/3, Ward No.4, Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
- Ramesh Chander R/o H.No.149/4, Ward No.23, DLF Colony, Rohtak.
- Sunny S/o Amar Nath R/o 513 Dashmesh Nagar, Rohtak.
...........…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Tilak Raj Inspector, IT for opposite party No. 1.
Opposite party no. 2 to 6, 8 and 9 in person.
Opposite party no. 7 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 03.09.2015, he opened a saving account no.3081960683 with opposite party no. 1. He used to deposit the amount in his saving account from time to time with the help of opposite party no. 2 who is agent of opposite party no. 1 and her code is 032936. He authorized the opposite party no.2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.3000/- per cheque. It is further submitted that the complainant approached to opposite party no. 1 for obtaining his account statement, then he was surprised to know that the opposite party no. 2 has illegally transferred the amount from the account of the complainant to the account of opposite party no. 3 to 10 on various dates more than Rs.3000/- per transaction. Thereafter complainant approached to opposite party no. 1 & 2 and requested them to restore the amount in account as he never issue any cheque to anyone nor he ever transfer the amount to said persons at any point of time. But till the filing of the present complaint, they have not restored the said amount in the account of the complainant. The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to restore the amount in the account of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of illegal deduction to till the date of actual realization. It is further prayed that opposite party may kindly also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 filed its reply submitting therein that the saving account no.3081960683 stands opened at their office on 03.09.2015 in the name of the complainant. It is not admitted that the depositor used to deposit amount in his saving account time to time as there is no cash deposit entry in his account. Also the amount is not withdrawn by Smt. Maya Devi Makkar. As per ruling pertaining to Department of Posts, Depositor will be responsible for any fraudulent withdrawal by a person obtaining possession of the passbook or ATM or Debit Card or a cheque from the cheque book of the depositor or by using any electronic mode of withdrawal. Opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Further opposite party no. 2 filed its reply on her behalf and on behalf of opposite party no. 3 to 6 and 8 in which opposite party no. 2 submitted that on 23.08.2005 she got agency of opposite party no.1 vide agency no.032936. It is further submitted that on 08-9/11/2005, complainant met with her in Post office and he asked the complainant to open his RD account through her. She took entire address of complainant and after a thorough search, she opened his account. The first RD account was opened on 14.11.2005 of Rs.5000/- which was matured on 14.11.2010. Second RD account was opened on 21.11.2010 of Rs.5000/- which was matured on 20.11.2015. Third RD account was opened on 20.11.2015 of Rs.5000/- which was matured on 19.11.2020. It is further submitted that complainant also got opened first RD account of his mother on 08.03.2007 of Rs.1000/- which was matured on 08.03.2012. Second RD account of his mother was opened on 10.03.2012 of Rs.2000/- which was matured on 10.03.2017. He also opened first RD account of his father on 02.06.2014 of Rs.7000/- which was matured on 02.06.2019. Second RD account of his father was opened on 18.06.2019 of Rs.6000/- which is to be matured on 15.06.2024. It is also submitted that passbook of father of the complainant was given back to complainant six months ago. Till his RD account running, he was withdrawing some money from the post office through cheque and rest in cash. The answering opposite parties withdrawn only the amount, which was given in the cheque. Now complainant is complaining about withdrawing the excess amount from 07.12.2016 to August 2017 by filing a complaint in Head Post Office on 15.10.2020. The money of his RD and MI of his father went to his father’s account, at that time also, he did not told that more money has been withdrawn from the account of his father. In the inquiry, she was not found guilty in the head office on 16.01.2021, in which she gave her statement. The original cheque which is available on internet shows the money which he had ordered to withdraw. The opposite party no.2 deposited Rs.40000/- cash on 07.12.2016 which is attached with the detail of notes. Hence the duplicate list produced by the complainant is of 11:45AM, which is false as they have no order to deposit after 11.00AM. Complainant is unnecessarily harassing the opposite parties. It is prayed that justice should be provided to the opposite parties.
4. Opposite party no. 9 submitted its reply that no detail of amount transferred in the account of answering opposite party has been given by the complainant to prove the same. The opposite party has been illegally dragged in the present case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
5. Opposite party no. 10 submitting its reply that he received the summon only after seeing the name of his father. Even he does not know the complainant. He is having RD account dated 03.01.2012 which was closed on 03.01.2017 and now he has no account in the post office. It is further submitted that complainant is unnecessary harassing the opposite party and it is prayed that the complaint be decided on the basis of report of Post Office. Complainant given up opposite party no. 7 being unnecessary vide statement dated 06.12.2021.
6. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.12.2022. He also submitted amended affidavit Ex.CW-1/B on 12.10.2023. Sh. Tilak Raj, Inspector IT on behalf of opposite party no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, and close his evidence on dated 27.03.2023. Opposite party no. 2 to 6, 8 & 10 tendered affidavits Ex.DW-1/A & Ex.DW-1/B and documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-15 and close his evidence on dated 07.02.2023. Opposite party no. 9 tendered documents Ex.R9/1 and submitted that reply already filed by him be also read as their evidence and closed his evidence on 07.02.2023.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
8. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. At the time of arguments, an enquiry report as ‘Annexure-JN-A’ has been placed on record by the opposite party no.1. As per this report some irregularities have been found on the part of agent Maya Devi and the report has been prepared by the department on the complaint of Sh. Shekhar Sharma complainant against the agent Smt. Maya Devi. Perusal of this report reveals that as per the enquiry, some amount has been fraudulently withdrawn by the agent Maya Devi i.e opposite party No.2 from the account of complainant. As per this report some amount has been withdrawn in excess through cheques no.993767 to 993774 and an another cheque no.993766 dated 07.12.2016 for Rs.20000/- was issued in the name of Postmaster HPO Rohtak for the purpose of ‘FOR RD LOT’ and this amount has been deposited by the agent Maya Devi in 11 different RD accounts. This report is annexed with the cheques No. 993767 to 993774 issued in the name of Ram Saran and Suresh Kumar and Detail of Account ledger of respondents in whose account the amount was transferred through cheque no.993767. Hence from the alleged report it is proved that some amount has been withdrawn from the accounts of the complainant fraudulently by the opposite party No.2 Smt. Maya Devi agent. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 is liable to refund the alleged amount to the complainant. At the time of arguments, complainant has placed on file copy of amended affidavit, as per which complainant has stated that respondent no.2 has illegally transferred the amount of Rs.6000/- from the account of complainant to the account of respodnentno.3 to 10 on various dates and the detail of same is given in this affidavit. As such opposite party no.2 is liable to refund Rs.6000/- to the complainant.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the alleged amount of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from dated 01.01.2017 to till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.10.2023
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
