Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/306/2023

Ramesh Chander Lamba - 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. : 306 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 05.10.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 29.10.2024

 

1. Ramesh Chander Lamba  age about 72 years son of Sh. Partap Singh R/o 5/177, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani.

 

2. Sneh Lamba wife of Ramesh Chander Lamba age about 70 years son of Sh. Partap Singh R/o 5/177, Naya Bazar, 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 complainants in order to save some amount from hard earned money, approached OP No.1 who suggested to deposit the amount in Senior Citizens Savings Scheme for five years as it will pay more interest. So, complainants deposited Rs.15.00 lac in their name on 23.07.2017 vide account no.3996162889 with the OP No.1. It is alleged that on the date of maturity, complainants visited the OP No.1 to return the matured amount but the complainant was shocked to know that there is no any amount deposited in their name. 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.15,00,000/- alongwith interest prevailing at the time of deposit or as assessed by the Hon’ble Commission from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay appropriate sum as compensation for harassment besides litigation expenses.

 2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, complainants 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 records, account No.3996162889 does not exist with Post office record. Since, the account does not exist in post office record, so the matter of this account relates to complainants does not arise. It is also submitted that the alleged account neither relates to complainants nor Bhiwani Postal Division. Hence, matter of issue of passbook by OPs does not arise.  It has been urged that no amount deposited by the complainants with OPs, hence, they are not entitled to get any payment from post office.  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, affidavit of complainant Ramesh Chander Lamba Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 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 alongiwth 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 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 deposit of the alleged amount has placed on record photocopies of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-1 (2 pages)  which reveals that on 23.07.2017, Rs.15.00 lac was deposited in account no.3996162889 and the date of maturity of the account was on 23.07.2022. Learned counsel for complainant has argued the OPs have not released the maturity amount despite visiting the office of OPs several times which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part 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 which shows that A/c ID 3996162889 does not exists and perusal of document Annexure R-2 reveals that on 23.07.2017 i.e. the day of deposit of the amount, there was Sunday. Thus learned counsel for OPs has argued that no question of deposit of any amount arise in this case.  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 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. 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 complainants. 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 the documents annexed with written arguments, Sh. Leela 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 helpful 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.15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen lac) to the complainants 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 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.