BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSALCOMMISSION:HYDERABAD
F.A.No.1819/2005 against C.D.No.146/2004 , Dist.Forum, Anantapur.
Between:
M.Prakash,
S/o.M.Chinnappa,
D.No.20/231, Prabhakar Street,
Anantapur. … Appellant/
Complainant
And
1.The Post Master,
Bukkarayasamudram Post Office
Bukkarayasamudram (V) & (M)
Anantapur District.
2.The Post Master ,
Head Post Office,
Anantapur,
Anantapur District.
3.The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Anantapur,
Anantapur District .
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi.
5.Smt.K.Vanajakshamma,
Flour Mill, Opposite Temple,
Bukkarayasamudram (V) & (M),
Anantapur District . …Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the appellant : Mr.A.Bhaskarachari
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. O.Manohar Reddy-R5
F.A.No.1121/2006 against C.D.No.146/2004 , Dist.Forum, Anantapur.
Between
1.The Post Master,
Bukkarayasamudram Post Office
Bukkarayasamudram.
2. The Post Master ,
Head Post office,
Anantapur,
3.The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Anantapur.
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Govt of India,
New Delhi. … Appellants/
Opp.parties
And
1.Prakash,
S/o.M.Chinnappa,
D.No.20/231, Prahabkar Street,
Old town,
Anantapur. …. Respondent/
Complainant
2. Smt. K. Vanajakshamma,
Flour Mill, Opposite Temple,
Bukkarayasamudram (V) and (M)
Anantapur District . ….. Respondent
Opp.party no. 5
Counsel for the appellants : Mr.V.Vinod Kumar ,Addl.C.G.S.C.
Counsel for the respondents : M/s.A.Bhaskarachari –R1
CORAM :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY , HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
******
F.A.No.1819/2005 is filed by the appellant/complainant to modify the order of the District Forum, Anantapur in C.D.No.146/2004 dt. 16.9.2005 by granting the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint .
F.A.No.1121/2006 is filed by the appellants/opp.parties 1 to 4 to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Anantapur in . C.D.No.146/2004 dt. 16.9.2005.
As both the appeals arise out of a same order, a common order can be passed
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant has opened four RD accounts at Bukkarayasamudram Post Office on 27.4.1998 and he was depositing Rs.1250/- every month one each of the four deposits aggregating to Rs.5000/- per month. The period of deposit is 60 months from 27.4.1998 and the date of maturity is 27.4.2003 and is entitled to the total maturity value of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant remitted the instalments promptly for 54 months aggregating to Rs.67,500/- one each of the four accounts and the complainant was given four pass books . Smt. K.Vanajakshamma i.e. opp.party no.5 is an authorized agent of the opp.party no.1 to collect and remit the instalments into the Post Office at Bukkarayasamudram and the complainant had delivered all the four pass books to the opp.party no.5. After paying 56 instalments when the complainant insisted upon the opp.party no.5 to show the entries in all the four pass books, the opp.party no.5 represented that they were not available with her. In the mean time an information broke out that the opp.party no.5 and opposite party no.1 both misappropriated most of the instalments paid by the depositors . The complainant checked the matter with the Station House Office, Bukkarayasamudram and learnt that the rumour was a fact and in police interrogation the opp.party no.5 informed that herself and her sons destroyed all the pass books. The opp.party no.1 issued four duplicate pass books showing only Rs.28.750/- standing to the credit of the complainant under each of the four accounts. On one occasion the opp.party no. 5 delivered the original statement issued to her by the opp.party no.1 which shows the complainant had remitted 54 instalments and this statement indicates clearly that there was cumulative balance of Rs. 67,500/- to the credit of each of the four accounts of the complainant. The complainant obtained the attested copy of the above statement issued by the opp.party no.1 . There is no recorded evidence regarding the payment of 55th and 56th instalments by the complainant. The complainant made several demands to the 1st and 5th opp.parties for payment of the maturity value of all four deposits and in this connection opp.party no.1 refused to receive the rest of the four instalments stating that some enquiry is going on and he was directed not to receive further instalments and that all the relevant books of records have been seized by the police. The complainant got issued a legal notice to all the opp.parties demanding the amount due to him for which the opp.party no.3 gave reply stating that the matter is under investigation and after completion of the same payment would be arranged. The complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.parties to pay total claim amount of Rs.6,59,060/- and also costs of the complaint.
The opposite party no.3 filed counter and opp.parties 1,2 & 4 filed a memo adopting the counter of the opp.party no. 3. The opp.party no.3 stated that the complainant had opened four R.D. accounts on 27.4.1998 through the opp.parytno.5 who is an authorised agent under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana (MPKBY) appointed by National Savings Scheme Branch of the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh . The complainant is entitled to receive full amount on the maturity date if he had paid all the instalments. But the complainant had paid only 23 instalments towards each account as per the records maintained in the post office. There is no record to show that the complainant had paid 54 instalments under each account. The duplicate pass books issued by the Postal Department basing on the available accounts in the postal records clearly show that the complainant had remitted only Rs.28,750/-. The staff in the post office receives money from the agent and make entries of the deposits in the relevant pass books and grant a certificate at the bottom of the list certifying that the total sum received and deposits credited in the pass books of the depositors concerned. It is the duty of the depositor to collect the pass books from the agent and keep them safely. As per the rules governing P.O.R.D. accounts which are printed in pass book , P.O.S.S.B. will not be responsible for any loss or incorrect payments due to any negligence by the depositor. The opposite party further submits that the agent has paid only 23 instalments in the Post Office accounts. The Post Office is liable for payment of the amounts of the deposits actually paid in the post office either direct or through an agent , but it is not liable for payment of amounts received by the agent from the public and not paid in the post office by the agent. The Postal Department is always ready to settle the account of the complainant as per the records available in the Post Office if the original pass books are produced. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Postal Department . The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is barred by limitation. The opp.party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Exs.A1 to A8 documents are filed on behalf of the complainant. Exs.B1 to B24 documents are filed on behalf of the opp.parties . The complainant himself was examined as PW. 1 . The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings , allowed the complaint partly directing the opp.parties 1 to 5 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.67,500/- to the complainant under each R.D. account i.e. in total a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.10.2002 till the date of realisation and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation.
Aggrieved by the said order complainant preferred appeal no. 1819/2005 and opp.parties 1 to 4 filed F.A.No. 1121/2006 .
F.A.No.1819/2005 is filed by the appellant/complainant contending that the opp.parties did not place relevant rules and guidelines governing PORD and mislead the Forum below by misrepresentation. When the Dist. Forum has seen that the PORDs were made from 27.4.1998 erred in granting interest from 1.10.2002 i.e. from the payment of last instalment (54th) and the Dist.Forum below should have granted the interest from the date of deposit. The District Forum should have seen that the PORD accounts are governed by the POSB general rules and PORD rules and according to these rules a formula has been made for closure of discontinued R.D. A/c. i.e. maturity value x no. of instalments deposited / no . of instalments due for maturity. The Dist.Forum should have followed the said formula and should have directed the opp.parties to pay Rs.3,75,030/- and interest. The Dist.Forum should have seen that according to Post Office Rules, Post Maturity interest is @ 9.25% simple interest % for every completed years and @ 3.5 simple interest % for every remaining completed months and should have directed the opp.parties to pay the same. The appellant prayed to modify the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal as prayed for .
F.A.No.1121/2006 is filed by the appellants/opp.parties 1 to 4 contending that the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute and the complaint itself is not maintainable. The complainant ought to have filed a civil suit before the Civil Court. The appellants are ready to settle the account of the complainant as per the records available in the Postal Department , if original pass books are produced and that the Department is not liable to pay the entire maturity value claimed by the complainant. When the Department has to work within the frame work of statutory rules in settling the accounts of the depositors such a compliance of rules cannot be termed as deficiency of service. The District Forum erred in entertaining the complaint when the issue involved complex question of facts and law as the matter involves fraud, cheating and misappropriation for which the police are still in the process of investigation and the result of their investigation is yet to be known . According to rule 5(3) of RD rules 1981 , under the scheme of MPK it is provided that the appointing authorities will check the antecedents of the agents before their appointment. In the event of any misappropriation of investor’s money by an agent appointed by an appointing authority authorized by a State Government, that State Government will bear the loss and this proposition has been upheld by a reported judgement CPR February 2005 Part P-295. The District Forum grossly erred in relying on Ex.B20 i.e. Ex.A2 when the form 6 ASLAAS I is prepared by the agent in triplicate/quadruplicate and the post office on presentation along with the cash by the agent , acknowledges the cash and returns the form-6 ASLAAS to the agent who in turn returns it to the depositor and in this case the complainant failed to produce any such evidence except the fabricated one by the agent which shows a balance of Rs.67,500/- in each account when there is no provision for showing such balance in the said form. The appellants prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal.
On the basis of the grounds of appeal the following points that arise for determination are
1. Whether the appellant/complainant has made out a ground for modification of the order passed by the District Forum ? if so what is the relief entitled by the complainant?
The appellants/opp.parties contended that the police has already seized the account books and the matter is involved complicated question of facts and law and the Civil Court is a proper court to decide the dispute. The respondent/complainant submits that the dispute raised by him is not a involved complicated questions of law and fact and Consumer Forums are having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. We have gone through the documentary evidence filed complainant and opp.parties. Ex.A1 is the duplicate passbooks of RD accounts. The original pass books are seized by the police and the police has already taken investigation of the case. On the basis of the duplicate pass book , the amounts deposited by the complainant can be determined . On the basis of the pass books and also oral evidence lead by the complainant it is proved that there was no complicated questions of fact or law involved. The dispute raised before the District Forum is a consumer dispute. The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding that the dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute and directed the opp.parties to pay Rs.67,500/- to the complainant under each R.D. account , in total a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- .with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.10.2002 till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs of the litigation .
There is no dispute with regard to the number instalments paid by the complainant is concerned. The duplicate pass books issued by the post office disclose that an amount of Rs.28,750/- standing to the credit of each of the RD account. The appellants/opp.parties submit that the District Forum grossly erred in relying on Ex.B20 (A2) when the Form-6 ASLAAS is prepared by the agent in triplicate /quadruplicate and the post office on presentation along with the cash by the agent , acknowledges the cash and returns the Form-6 ASLAAS to the agent who in turn returns it to the depositor . The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable.
The respondent/complainant submits that the District Forum should have followed the formula under POSB General rules and PORD Rules and should have directed the opp.parties to pay Rs.1,12,500/- on each deposit, totaling to Rs. 4,50,000/- with interest. Submission made by the respondent/complainant is not sustainable. The duplicate pass books and other documentary evidence goes to show that 23 instalments were paid under each account. The complainant has failed to file any record to show that he has paid 54 instalments under each account. . Even the duplicate pass books issued by the postal department basing on the available records clearly show that the complainant has remitted Rs.28,750/- in each account. The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding. The Post Office is liable for the payment of amounts of the deposit actually paid in the Post Office either by direct or the through agent but it is not liable for payment of amount received by the agent and not paid to the post office by the agent . The opposite party never issued any statement showing that there was accumulation of balance of 67,500/- showing the accounts of the complainant. The opp.party no.3 stated that the opp.party no.5 collects money and pass books from the depositors and handover the money so collected along with pass books and a list called Aslaas-6 in the post office. It is also stated that the staff in the post office receives money from the agent and make entries of the deposits in the relevant pass books and grant a certificate at the bottom of the list certifying that the total sum was received and deposits credited in the pass books of the depositors concerned. There is no dispute that Ex.A2 is corresponding to Ex.B20 . Ex.B20 shows the payment of last instalment made by the complainant through opp.party no.5 on 30.9.2002 and the total amount lying to the credit of the complainant under each R.D.. account in column no.6 of Ex.B20 is Rs.67,500/- .Ex.B20 falsified the version of the opp.parties 1 to 4. Ex.B20 amply reveals that the complainant had paid 54 instalments aggregating to Rs.67,500/- under each R.D.Account. The District Forum has elaborately discussed and given finding. There are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Order of the District Forum is confirmed.
Appeals F.A.Nos.1819//2005 and F.A.No. 1121/2006 are dismissed . In the circumstances without costs. The appellants/opp.parties in F.A.No.1121/2006 are directed to comply the order of the District Forum within six weeks from the date of the order.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Dt.9.9.2008
Pm*
