BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
Between
The Sub Post Master
Sub Post Office
Collectorate Branch
Nagarampalem,
Guntur Appellant/opposite partyno.2
A N D
1. Jonnalagadda Venakta Gayathri
D/o J.Balarama Sastry
R/o D.No.3-29-61/1, 2nd Lane
Krishna Nagar, Guntur
Respondent/complainant
2. Konda Krishna Kumari
W/o late Rama Krishna Rao
Authorised Postal Agent
R/o 22-5-117, Konda Narayana
Nilayam Backside of Mosque
Medara Bazar, Lalapet, Guntur
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Between
The Sub Post Master
Sub Post Office
Collectorate Branch
Nagarampalem,
Guntur Appellant/opposite partyno.2
A N D
1. Jonnalagadda Radha
D/o J.Balarama Sastry
R/o D.No.3-29-61/1, 2nd Lane
Krishna Nagar, Guntur Respondent/complainant
2. Konda Krishna Kumari
W/o late Rama Krishna Rao
Authorised Postal Agent
R/o 22-5-117, Konda Narayana
Nilayam Backside of Mosque
Medara Bazar, Lalapet, Guntur
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellants Sri V.Vinod Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri S.Rajkumar
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Served
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
Aggrieved by the orders in C.D.No.178 of 2006 and C.D.No.179 of 2006, the opposite party no.2 preferred F.A.No.863 of 2007 and F.A.No.865 of 2006. Since both these appeals deal with common facts they are being disposed of by a common order.
The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that her father believing the version of the opposite partyno.1 deposited an amount of Rs.36,000/- on 22.10.1998 in the name of the complainant with the opposite party no.1 under monthly income scheme for a period of six years. The second opposite party paid an amount of Rs.390/- towards monthly interest to the complainant. The complainant opened a recurring deposit account with the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.520/- per month. The complainant deposited the monthly recurring deposit amount of Rs.390/- from her MIS account and Rs.130/- from her mother’s MIS account, a total amount of Rs.520/- per month. The first opposite party was authorized to collect from the accounts of the complainant and her mother and credit the monthly interest to the recurring deposit account of the complainant with the second opposite party.
The second opposite party discharged her duties as the agent of the opposite party no.2 by utilizing the service of her son K.Laxminarayana as and when required. The first opposite party obtained withdrawal forms signed by the complainant for the purpose of withdrawing the interest of Rs.390/- under the MIS scheme and also obtained withdrawal form signed by the complainant’s mother to withdraw the interest of Rs.130/- under the MIS scheme and deposited the amounts in the recurring deposit account of the complainant from time to time. The second opposite party made relevant entries for withdrawal and payment of the amounts in both the passbooks regularly. The first opposite party with malafide intention and with the help of the second opposite party misappropriated the amounts of Rs.36,000/- under the MIS scheme on 27.4.2002 by using the withdrawal form for closure of the account without receiving any written consent from the complainant. The first opposite party with the help of the second opposite party made entries in the passbook even after closure of the account. The passbook entries show the account continued till 30.4.2004 as against the misappropriation committed on 27.4.2002. The first opposite party has misappropriated the recurring deposit amount on 25.11.2003. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 made entries in the passbook till 30.4.2004 as if the account was alive.
The father of the complainant came to know that the amounts were misappropriated and he had informed the fact to the second opposite party besides lodging a complaint on 9.7.2004 before the police Nagarampalem who registered a case in Cr.No.216 of 2004 u/s 420 of IPC. The second opposite party held departmental enquiry and expressed their inability to realize the deposit amount from the first opposite party or from the concerned staff of the second opposite party. There was no response from the second opposite party to the representation of the complainant’s father in regard to the misappropriation of the amount. During the enquiry of the case the second opposite party collected the passbooks from the complainant and handed over them to the police for investigation of the case. The second opposite party has informed that the withdrawal form denotes the closure of the account. There is a difference between withdrawal and closure of the account. The first and second opposite parties jointly cheated the complainant. The second opposite party is the custodian of the public money and being the master of the first opposite party who is their agent is liable for the acts done by the first opposite party while acting as an agent of the second opposite party.
The first opposite party resisted the claim by contending that she is an authorized agent of the second opposite party no.2. The first opposite party is not acquainted with the complainant. The first opposite party has not opened the account of the complainant as the agent under the RD scheme or all subsequent transactions. The duty of the RD agent is to assist the subscribers in opening the account and guiding them only for which a nominal commission is paid by the postal authorities. The complainant has not authorized the opposite party no.1 to withdraw the amounts from her account. The payments have to be made by the subscribers only. The opposite party no.1 is not liable to pay any loss caused to the complainant. Opposite party no.1 is not a necessary party to the proceedings as the entire transactions are made between the complainant and the opposite party no.2. The complainant and the second opposite party colluded to have wrongful gain at the expense of the first opposite party. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The second opposite party has filed counter and contended that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.36,000/’- with them on 22.10.1998 under MIS account No.15931 for a period of six years and she has also opened an RD account No.65011 with them. The complainant used to withdraw the interest from her account through her messenger and got deposited the same in her RD account along with the amount of Rs.130/- towards the interest earned on her mother’s MIS account. The complainant authorized the messenger to collect the interest from MIS account and deposit it in her RD account. The service of the first opposite party and the messenger was engaged by the complainant. The second opposite party has not asked the complainant to engage the service of the first opposite party. The complainant made a complaint to the opposite party alleging that the amount was withdrawn by the first opposite party and the same was misappropriated. The second opposite party initiated enquiry. The enquiry officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses and during the course of the enquiry the complainant has stated that she signed on the blank withdrawal form and allowed her messenger to withdraw the amount. The second opposite party had been discharging the duties, relied upon the S.B.-7 form and entrusted the amount to the messenger.
The second opposite party is not concerned with the aspect of misappropriation of the amount by the first opposite party or her messenger. The complainant admitted that she has signed the SB-7 form and gave the same to her messenger. By signing a blank form the complainant has exhibited negligence and she has no right to ask for compensation or damages that have been sought on account of her negligence.
There is no master and servant relationship between the second opposite party and the first opposite party. The second opposite party did not commit and breach of trust. After closure of the MIS account, an employee of the second opposite party has stolen the passbook and returned it to the messenger. Both the MIS account and RD account were closed by adopting proper procedure and relying upon the SB-7 form signed by the complainant. The complainant’s messenger had withdrawn the amount and misappropriated the funds but not as the agent of the second opposite party. The police Nagarampalem registered a case against the son of the first opposite party and the case is pending before the JMFC, Prohibition and Excise, Guntur. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has filed her affidavit and Exs.A1 to A6 had been marked on her side.
On behalf of the opposite parties, Exs.B1 to B10 have been marked.
The District Forum has allowed complaint in C.D.No.178 of 2006 directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to pay the amount under MI Scheme with interest and also the amount under RD account along with interest and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation. The C.D.No.179 of 2006 was allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount under MI Scheme with interest, compensation and costs.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District forum the opposite party no.2 has filed F.A.No.863 of 2007 and F.A.No.865 of 2007 contending that the District forum has not considered the negligence of the complainant who authorized the first opposite party to collect the recurring deposit amount every month. The opposite party no.2 has discharged their duty as per note no.2 to rule 41 clause 1 of POSD rules. The signature of the complainant and that of the messenger on the withdrawal form tallied with the specimen available in record with the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.1 is not the agent of the opposite party no.2. The MPKBYSAS agents are appointed by the District Collectors for mobilizing savings and it is the messenger who has been carrying out the transactions on behalf of the complainant. The messenger who has committed the fraud has not been impleaded in the complainant as the opposite party. The complainant has admitted that she had reposed confidence in the agent and her son and thus got herself cheated by them. There is no relationship of master and agent between the opposite parties no.2 and 1. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the opposite party no.1 and her son before the JFMC Guntur. The messenger was drawing the interest right from the beginning on behalf of the complainant. The allegation of the fraud, collusion, breach of trust and cheating are outside the purview of the jurisdiction of the fora under the C.P.Act. The issues involved are the complex question of facts and law for which a criminal case has been pending for trial before the competent court.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned orders suffer from misappreciation of facts or law?
The facts not in dispute are that the father of the complainant has opened MIS account no.15131 in the name of the complainant on 22.10.1998 by depositing an amount of Rs.36,000/- and RD account bearing No.65011 was also opened in the name of the complainant on 22.10.1998 with the opposite party no.2 for an amount of Rs.520/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the complainant in C.D.No.179 of 2006 opened MIS account No15931 on 22.10.1998 by depositing an amount of Rs.24,000/- in the name of his wife. The complainants in both the C.Ds engaged the service of the son of the opposite party no.1 as their messenger who in turn was authorized by his mother the opposite party no.1 to do business on her behalf.
The learned counsel opposite party no.2 has contended that the opposite party no.1 is not the agent of the opposite party no.2. Therefore, it is essential to consider whether the opposite party no.1 is the agent of the opposite party no.2 before discussing the validity and impact of the act done by the son of the opposite party no.1 in regard to the misappropriation of the amounts of the complainants. Admittedly, the District Collector has appointed the opposite party no.1 as MPKBYSAS agent. The opposite party no.2 has lodged complaint with the police on 24.8.2004 against the son of the opposite partyno.1 with a request to take action against him stating that the son of the opposite partyno.1 had used the withdrawal form for closure of the accounts which were actually given by the complainant for drawing monthly interest from their respective accounts. Further, it is stated in the complaint as under:
“ Sri K.Lakshman is actually not authorsied to do business on behalf of Smt Konda Krishna Kumari, MPKBY Agent. He has done on behalf of her mother unauthorisedly. He belied the conficence of the depositors and the staff of the Post office. Since he is a regular customer, staff of Guntur Collectorate Post Office did not grow suspicion on him and allowed him inside to do business. Taking this opportunity, Sri K.Lakshman used to get the stamp impressions of Post Office keeping the staff under the impression that he was getting stamp impressins for genuine transactions.
The said Sri K.Lakshman has not only cheated the depositors, but also the departmental staff. By his undo activities, the depositors have lost the confidence in the Postal Department and also the other SAS/MPKBY Agents.
Hence, it is, requested to take suitable action against Smt Konda Krishna Kumari, MPKBY Agent who indirectly helped her son to do business and also against Sri K.Lakshman, S/o Smt Konda Krishna Kumari who has cheated the depositors by manipulating the pass books and getting the stamp impressions in the closed pass books.
The complaint would dispel the mist whereunder the opposite party no.2 has been contending a two-fold contention that there is no master-agent relationship between them and the opposite party no.1 and the act of the son of the opposite party no.1 has no concern whatsoever or binding in any manner on the opposite party no.2. In the complaint referred to above, the opposite party no.2 has admitted that the opposite partyno.1 is their agent and the opposite party no.1 as also the opposite party no.2 consciously permitted the son of the opposite party no.1 to do the business including the collection and remittance of the deposit from the subscribers as also withdrawal and payments to the subscribers. As such it cannot be said that there is no master-agent relationship between the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.1 as also the liability of the opposite party no.2 cannot be questioned insofar as the son of the opposite party no.1 doing the business including the aforementioned functions in the premises and in relation to the business of the opposite party no.2. Hence, this document would dispel all the mist in the contention of the opposite party no.2.
Admittedly, an amount of Rs.36,000/- under MIS-15131, and a sum of Rs.29,640/- under R.D.No.65011 of the complainant in C.D.No.178 of 2006 has not been paid to the complainant. An amount of Rs.24,000/- under MIS No.15930 has not been paid to the complainant in C.D.No.179 of 2006. The opposite party no.2 contends that the complainants negligently signed blank SB-7 forms and that after closure of the accounts, the staff of the second opposite party had torn the passbooks and returned them to the messenger. The passbooks placed on record do not show any signs of their being torn. The opposite party no.2 had not brought in any other evidence except the Exs.B1 to B10 which would not in any manner help their case. On the other hand, the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 with the police Nagarapalem would help the contention of the complainants that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 as also the son of the opposite party no.1 had played fraud on them whereby they have been deprived of the amounts invested in good faith with the opposite party no.2 on a promise from the opposite partyno.2 of guaranteed return of the deposits along with the accrued interest thereon. In the complaint lodged by the opposite partyno.2 with the police which is an encyclopedia of all the relevant facts of the case and would spell out volumes of negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 in regard to the repayment of the amounts due to the complainants. In that view of the matter, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 are liable to pay the amounts to the complainants. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the appeals are devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeals F.A.No.863 of 2007 and 865 of 2007 are dismissed confirming the order in C.D.Nos.178 of 2006 and C.D.No.179 of 2006 passed by the District Forum. The costs of the proceedings are quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.07.04.2010
KMK*
