Consumer Complaint No.149 of 2013
Date of filing: 22.07.2013 Date of disposal: 17.09.2014
Complainant: Smt.Jayanti Bhowmick & Amit Bhowmick, Puranahat, Burnpur ,
District.-Burdwan-713325.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Post Master, Burnpur Market Sub-Post Office, Burnpur,
Burdwan-713325.
2. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Asansol Division, Asansol-713301.
3. Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Postal Circle, Jogajog Bhaban,
Kolkata-700 012.
4. General Manager, Postal Accounts & Finance, West Bengal Postal Service,
20/B, Abdul Hamid Street, Kolkata-700 069.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Up to argument stage through Ld. Advocate Animesh Nath,
since deceased and thereafter complainant herself.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate Murari Mohan Kumar.
JUDGEMENT
This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainants’ short case is that they opened one MIS account at Burnpur Market Sub-Post Office, O.P. No.1 on 03.09.2011 by depositing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through Santoshi Routh, Postal Agent attached to Burnpur Market Sub-Post office. The pass book bearing Account No.MIS-14602 under seal, stamp and signature of Sub-post master of Burnpur Market Sub-post Office were issued in favour of the complainants.
The complainants regularly drew monthly interest of Rs.1000/- against the MIS account No.14602 by presenting the pass books at the counter of the Burnpur Post Office and every time the payment was registered and entry was made in the pass books by post office under its seal, stamp and signature of Sub-post master. They drew last monthly interest on 3.1.2012 and each time the transaction was made in the pass book under seal, stamp and signature of Post Office and thereafter no monthly interest was paid to them on the plea that the pass book would be computerized since at the time the transaction was made by manual operation and retained by the post office in their custody for entering the whole system in computer.
After some time when they went to the post office to drew monthly interest and get back the pass book, they did not supply the pass book to the complainant and stated that the pass book supplied by the post office is fake and all entries therein are false. The complainants were astonished and failed to understand how the pass book is declared to be false, since the same was issued by the post office under seal and signature of post office and post office also made earlier payments from its counter under seal, stamp and signature of sub-post master. If the same have now been detected as false that may be the mischievous act done by the post office itself for having some personal interest or otherwise gain since earlier interest were paid through these pass book from the counter.
The complainant deposited the money in the post office as their safe custody and also for getting monthly interest on it. As such they must not suffer in any way for the unfair, mischievous and illegal acts on the part of the post office and/or others and post office is certainly liable to make payment of the deposit money together with as committed by the posts office since post office is recognized and approved by the post office duly taking responsibilities.
Due to the aforesaid acts of deficiency and unfair acts on part of O.P., the complainants have been suffering tremendous mental agony, financial crisis and harassment and post office is liable to make payment of total Rs.1,99,000/- plus 12% interest on the above claim amount till date of payment.
The O.P.s have contested the case by filing written objection, denying inter-alia all the material allegations made in the complaint. The O.P.s also stated that in course of verification of balance of the pass book it was detected that the alleged deposit was not made by the claimants to the O.P. No.1 Post Office in government account. It further revealed that one Baidya Nath Pandey and Vijaya Pandey of Police Line, Burnpur in account No.14602 on 5.9.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The claim of the claimants are absolutely concocted any myth and fraudulent for unlawful gain in collusion with Santoshi Routh, W/o.Soumen Routh the alleged SAS agent.
The O.P.s further stated that the SAS agent are appointed by the Dey Director of Small Savings and they are neither employee of postal department and cannot be deemed as agent of postal authority. All contrary allegations made by claimants in their claim application are baseless and fanciful allegations. It may be noted here that on departmental enquiry that a good number of fraud cases including the present one was detected against the said SAS agent who illegally managed documents like pass book, stamps and fake initials of postal staff and postal authority lodged FIR against said SAS agent at Hirapur Police Station under Hirapur P.S. Case No.232/2012 and in that connection said Soumen Routh, husband of Santoshi Routh was put under arrest. Needless to mention here that Santoshi and Soumen are in the conspiracy with each other and associate with the aforesaid fraud.
These O.P.s also stated that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,50,000/- or any amount of money as alleged having not been deposited with the O.P. No.1 or the postal department. The question of repayment of the same or interest as alleged does not arise and there is no question of relationship of customer or vendor between the claimants and the postal authority arises at all and deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is absolutely a myth. It may be mentioned here that the SAS agent had no authority to make any cash deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- which can only be made by cheque in favour of postal authority. In the aforesaid circumstances the complainants’ instant claim has no merit and it has only been filed for unlawful gain and to harass the postal authority and as such the same is fit to be rejected with adequate cost.
Point for consideration in this case is;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice acted by the post office?
DECISION WITH REASON
At the outset it must be stated that Santoshi Routh, postal agent through whom the entire amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited, did not make party to this case. Accordingly this case is proceeding as misjoinder of necessary parties.
We have perused the allegation of the complainants and find that complainants deposited Rs.1,500,000/- through Santoshi Rouht, who is not made party by one pass books bearing No. MIS-14620. It has claimed by the complainants that O.P. although allowed monthly interest upto 3.1.2012 but thereafter taken a plea that the pass books and its entry are all false although it bears the signature, seal, stamp of the sub-Post Master and Post Office. It has comes to our knowledge that the Postal Department has initiated departmental enquiry regarding fake pass book and also criminal case was filed on the plea of forged and fabricated document. The O.P.s also claimed that the entries which are appearing in the pas book is not the entry of the authorized person of the Postal Department. The O.P.s also strongly claimed that if the complainants actually opened the MIS account and Postal Department received the same amount then definitely money receipt was issued to the complainants. But unfortunately the complainant did not file single money receipt to justify his legal deposit. So, we hold that if any mischievous or fraud practice was acted upon by Santoshi Routh then Post Office will not be liable for that because Santoshi Routh is the person selected by the complainants and complainants never asked him to hand over money receipt nor enquired to the Postal Department as to non-receipt of money receipt.
The Ld. Advocate of the O.P. has thrashed his submission by saying that until and unless complainants are able to prove the payment of instalment by showing any documentary evidence i.e. postal receipt, how the complainants claims themselves as a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Ld. Advocate of the complainant has replied that the pass book itself is sufficient to prove that operation was made. But we hold that the said pass book has been declared fake and forge by the Postal Department. So, how the said pass book can be treated at this stage is a legal document when a criminal case is pending for the proper adjudication in the matter. But we cannot say at this stage that the complainant is not a consumer since the matter is subjudice to the criminal court for determination of the date of alleged fake and fabricated pass book.
During the course of argument Ld. Counsel of the complainants have relied on the judgment reported in 2012(2) CPR 8(Chhattisgarh) passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Chhattisgarh. We have perused the facts and circumstances of the judgment and find the same is not applicable as the facts and circumstances is not identical with the case in hand, because the said case was initiated U/s 138 of the NI Act and the case in hand is completely different in nature wherein the complainant has claimed deficiency of service against the Postal Department U/s 12 of the C.P. Act.
Again Ld. Counsel of the complainant has also relied another judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014(1) CPR Page-610 (NC), wherein we find that ‘Post Master received the cheque’. But in the case in hand there is no receipt issued by the Post Master. So, on a moment scrutiny we find that the said judgment is not applicable in this case also. The Ld. Advocate of the complainant also relied one judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2013(2) CPR Page-133(NC) regarding the object of Consumer Protection Act which is a social legislature to provide economic justice and protect consumers from exploitation. We are also in the same view with the Hon’ble National Commission but it is sorry state of affairs that until and unless complainants have able to prove that they were exploited from the act of the Postal Department, how we hold that the complainants are exploited by the Postal Department? Particularly when the Santoshi Routh, the star person is not made party. So, inspite of knowing the fact that it is our duty to provide economic justice and protects to the consumers, we are really helpless for want of appropriate documents i.e. money receipts and judgment of the criminal court at this stage. We hold that if in the criminal case the employee of the Postal Department found guilty then vicarious liability of the Postal Department cannot be ousted. We are aware from a reported judgment reported in 2012(1) CPR 64 that “Post Office is responsible for acts of its authorized agent”. Here in the instant case authorized agent is not contested the case and the case is proceeding against him in experte. However, if the complainant able to succeed in the criminal case then complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint before this Forum for Redressal and in that event Postal Department will be liable to refund entire deposit money along with compensation and litigation cost. But at this stage our hands are tight particularly when Ld. Counsel of the O.P. strongly submits that if any mischievous act was done by the Santoshi Routh then the entire liability should be casted upon her not the Postal Department.
It is very interested to be point out that although O.P.s have claimed that one Baidya Nath Pandey and Vijaya Pandey of Police Line, Burnpur having account No.14620 dated 5.9.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- the entire claims of the complainant of the same MIS account number is absolutely concocted and fraudulent for unlawful gain in collusion with Santoshi Routh, wife of Soumen Routh the alleged SAS agent.
In the above back drop we are very sorry to say that at this stage the complainants failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice of Postal Department i.e. O.P. No.1, 2,3 & 4 respectively. We are hopeful that complainants will get proper justice in the appropriate court of law regarding alleged forgery in collusion with O.P. No.2 and Postal Department if at all happened. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is dismissed on contest with the observation made in above against O. P. No.1, 2,3 & 4 respectively. But complainant is at liberty to file fresh complaint after disposal of the criminal case in the light of our observation made in above. We make no order as to cost. Let the plain copy of this order be handed over to all the parties.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
