Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/304/2023

Darshana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Nayyar

29 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 304 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 05.10.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 29.10.2024

                                                                                                      

Darshana wife of Sh. Anil Kumar R/o Meham Road, Near Honda Agency, Bhiwani.

 

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Post Master, Head Post Office, Ghanta Ghar, Bhiwani.

 

2. Chief General Postmaster, Circular Road, Ambala Cantt-133001.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Lalit Nayyar and Sh. Mahinder Khurana, Advocates for complainant.

                    Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant in order to save some amount from hard earned money, approached OP No.1 who suggested to deposit the amount in Term/Time Deposit Scheme for five years as it will pay more interest. So, complainant deposited through the maturity amount of R.D. A/c No.3050356479 with OPs for an amount of Rs.2,11,000/- in her name on 26.05.2021 in a Time Deposit Scheme vide passbook account no.020069756097 and CIF No.328167200 and maturity date of the scheme is 26.05.2026. Complainant also deposited through the maturity amount of R.D. A/c No.343688042 with OPs for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in her name on 30.11.2021 in a Time Deposit Scheme vide passbook account no.020024684839 and CIF No.3302766331 and maturity date of the scheme is 30.11.2026. She has also deposited with OPs Rs.3,00,000/- in her name on 09.12.2021 in a Time Deposit Scheme vide passbook account no.020025963676 and CIF No.3328167200 and maturity date of the scheme is 09.12.2026. It is alleged that complainant visited the OP No.1 in July 2023 to get back the deposited amount premature for some domestic needs alongwith interest but the complainant was shocked to know that there is no any amount deposited in such type of deposit. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.8,61,000/- alongwith interest prevailing at the time of deposit or as assessed by the Commission from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay appropriate sum as compensation for harassment besides Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

 2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, complainant not a consumer, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that as per finacle software/records of Post Office, Account No.3050356479 was opened on 25.05.2015 at the SOL ID 12702100 and the same has been closed on 26.05.2020 with amount of Rs.3,76,988/- by crediting the amount  Saving Bank (Joint) A/c No.4781179979 in the name of Sh. Sunil & Darshna (complainant). Further A/c No.020069756097 was opened on 03.03.2023 at SOL ID 48044701 in the nameof Nidhi Khelwadi R/o Noni Nr of Blue Computer Center Wn 14 Sausar, City-Chhindwara, State Madhya Pradesh. This Account No.020069756097 neither belongs to complainant nor belong to Bhiwani H.O. or any other post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division.  It is clarified that CIF 328167200 does not belong to the account No. 020069756097. It has been submitted that A/c R.D. Account No.343688042 does not exist with Post Office record. The account No.020024684839 was opened on 23.11.2021 at SOL ID 79927701 in the name of Basit Ali R/o Yeazekhowra, Baburbazar, Kailashahar, City North Tripura, State-Tripura does not belong to Bhiwani H.O. or any other Post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division. Account No.020024684839 neither relates to complainant nor relates to CIF 3302766331 and this CIF is not a valid CIF ID as per post office records. The OP has submitted that as per records, Account No.020025963676 was opened on 09.12.2021 in the name of Malanbai R/o Hokrana, City Bidar, State Karnataka. This Account neither belongs to complainant nor belongs to Bhiwani H.O. or any other post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division.  This account also does not relate to CIF 3328167200. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-10 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, in evidence of OPs, affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Post Master, Bhiwani Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10 were tendered and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file minutely. Written arguments filed on behalf of OPs. Ld. counsel for complainant has also placed reliance on case law delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal No.690 of 2018 titled Department of Post & 3 Ors. Vs. Colonel Narendra Nath Suri (Retd.) decided on 05.06.2023.

6.                 Complainant in order to prove the deposits of the alleged amounts has placed on record photocopies of passbook of Post Office issued to complainant as Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-7 which reveal that the amounts of Rs.2,11,000/, 3,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively were deposited by complainant with the OPs through her another accounts with post office ( Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3) as   alleged in the complaint. The amount allegedly paid by complainant has not received to the complainant under the post office account mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the OPs has not released the amounts despite visiting the office of OPs several times which amounts to deficiency in service on their part as well as unfair trade practice and prayed for acceptance of the complaint as prayed for.

7.                 On the other hand, OP side has placed on record documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-10 whereby stated that the Account No.3050356479 was opened on 25.05.2015 at the SOL ID 12702100 and the same has been closed on 26.05.2020 with amount of Rs.3,76,988/- by crediting the amount  Saving Bank (Joint) A/c No.4781179979 in the name of Sh. Sunil & Darshna (complainant). Rest of the amount were not deposited by complainant rather the accounts were in the name of other persons as mentioned above.  It has been pointed out that on 26.05.2021 allegedly the amount deposited by complainant was holiday. Thus no question of deposit of the amount arise on this day. The counsel has argued that the alleged passbooks are handwritten whereas all passbooks in post office are printed and handwriting of all the copies of passbooks produced in this case as well as in other cases are in one handwriting which clearly speaks that the passbooks were prepared by the agent Lila Krishan Mehta. The counsel has further argued that complainant Ran Singh in other cases, during a departmental enquiry on 12.01.2023 has admitted that he had opened all the accounts alongwith numbers in post office through agent Lila Krishan Mehta who is known to him for the last 25-30 years. Further, Smt. Usha Rani wife of the Agent and his son Joginder Kumar has also admitted /recognized the handwriting of the Agent. Thus learned counsel for OPs has argued that no question of deposit of the alleged amount by complainant arise. As such, the counsel has vehemently argued that the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

8.                 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we have observed that the alleged amount was deposited by complainant with OPs but the amount was not returned to the complainant and they have no justification, to withhold the amounts of complainant as she was in need of the deposited amounts. Further, the OPs have utterly failed to perform their part of obligations. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs, even after the filing of this complaint and during the pendency of this complaint, have not shown any interest to release the maturity amount to the complainant. As per pleadings of the OPs in some connected cases and as per written arguments of OPs, Sh. Leela Krishan Mehta was their Agent and was working for the post office. In this regard, the case law Department of Post & 3 Ors (supra) is much help in deciding the present case wherein a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has been quoted having titled Pradeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. Post Master General and Others (2022) 6 SCC-351, Civil Appeal No.8775-8776 of 2016 whereby it is observed that “it is settled proposition of law that principal is liable for the act of his agent.”  In view of the aforesaid discussion, it would be suffice to say that OPs are legally liable for the act of their agent. Therefore, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while delivering services to the complainant which has caused huge monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.8,61,000/- (Rs.Eight lac sixty one thousand) to the complainant alongwith agreed rate of interest under the scheme, from the date of deposit of the amount till its actual realization subject to fulfilling necessary formalities, if any, by complainant.  

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iv)     Also to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the amounts mentioned above shall attract interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.

                    Further, if this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite parties may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:29.10.2024.

                              (Shashi Kiran Panwar)                 (Saroj Bala Bohra)

                                                   Member                 Presiding Member

District Consumer

Disputes Redressal

         Commission, Bhiwani.