Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/65/2023

Pooja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Mahinder Khurana

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 65 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 27.03.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 27.11.2024

 

1. Pooja wife of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar R/o H.No.1470, Sector-13, Bhiwani.
2. Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh.Harbans Lal R/o H.No.1470, Sector-13, Bhiwani.

          ……Complainants.

 

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 complainants.

                    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 of Post office as it will pay more interest. So, complainants deposited Rs.5,50,000/- and Rs.3,70,000/- in their names on 16.11.2021 & 11.01.2022 vide account no.0200233951923 & 020084552269 and CIF Nos.304398280 & 304398181 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme was 16.11.2022 and 11.01.2023. After maturity of the amount, complainants approached the Ops but they were shocked to know that there is no any amount deposited in their names. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainants alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs thereby causing monetary loss, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.971,652/- (Rs.5,80,877+ Rs.3,90,773/- alongwith interest) with further interest 20% per annum and compensation for harassment as Rs.2.00 lac besides litigation expenses of Rs.22000/-. 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 admitted that as per finacle software/records of Post office, Account No.020023951923 of TD one year scheme has been opened on 11.11.2021 in the name of Sikha Betal R/o village Rajsole, P.O. Joypur City Bankura with SOL ID No.72213801 relates to West Bengal State and does not relates to Bhiwani HO or any post office under account jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division as claimed by complainants whereas the A/c No.0200842269 does not exists as per finacle software/records of post office. It is also submitted that complainants did not make any complaint with post office authority in this regard. The CIF Nos.304398280 and 304398181 do not relate to account No.020023951923.  It is further submitted that the said CIF numbers  have been found made on 29.09.2015 by this office in the name of Pooja Rani and Sanjeev Kumar Juneja respectively. It is submitted that complainants has alleged to deposit a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- on 16.11.2021 and Rs.3,70,000/- on 11.01.2022 in Head Post Office Bhiwani is wrong whereas as per records, no such amounts have been deposited by complainants on the alleged dates. Hence, the complainants are not entitled to any payment. 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 complainants, affidavits of complainant Sanjeev Kumar as Ex.CW1/A & Ex. CW2/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 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 & Annexure R-2 were tendered and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file minutely. Written arguments on behalf of OPs filed. Ld. counsel for complainants 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.                 Complainants in order to prove deposit of the alleged amount has placed on record photocopy of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-2 reveal that the alleged amounts of Rs.5,50,000/- on 16.11.2021 and Rs.3,70,000/- on 11.01.2022 was deposited in the account numbers 020023951923 and 020084552264 of complainants and the date of maturity of the account was on  16.11.2022 and 11.01.2023. Learned counsel for complainants has argued that the OPs has not released the maturity amount 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 document Annexures R-1 & Annexure R-2 which shows that the alleged account does not belong to complainants thus no question arises to deposit any amount in this account by complainants. The counsel has pointed out 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 Ran Singh-complainant 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. 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 complainants with OPs but the amount was not returned to the complainants and they have no justification, to withhold the maturity amount of complainant. 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 complainants.  As per pleadings of the OPs in some connected cases and as per written arguments of OPs, Sh. Lila Krishan 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 complainants. 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.9,20,000/- (Rs. Nine lac twenty thousand) to the complainants 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 complainants.  

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

(iii)     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 complainants 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: 27.11.2024