Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/108/2023

ran singh - 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. : 108 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 10.05.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               :  29.10.2024

 

1. Ran Singh, age about 67 years son of Sh. Udmi Ram, R/o Vidya Nagar, Meham Road, Near Hooda Agency, Bhiwani.

 

2. Anita, age about 19 years D/o Anil Kumar, R/o Vidya Nagar, Meham Road, Near Hooda Agency, 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 Term/Time Deposit Scheme for one year as it will pay more interest. So, complainants deposited Rs.3.00 lac with OPs on 16.02.2022 vide account no.020031680014, CIF Nos.409638967 and 107365424 for a period of one year having maturity date 16.02.2023 alongwith interest @ 5.62% p.a.. The complainants also deposited Rs.3.00 lac with OPs on 16.02.2022 vide account no.020031680722, CIF Nos.409638967 and 107365424 for a period of one year having maturity date 16.02.2023 alongwith interest @ 5.62% p.a. It has been submitted that complainant No.1 deposited Rs.4,52,000/- with OPs on 09.02.2022 vide account no.020029054536, CIF No.107365424 for a period of one year having maturity date 09.02.2023 alongwith interest @ 5.62% p.a.  Complainant no.1 also deposited Rs.1.00 lac with OPs on 04.04.2022 vide account no.020046789656 and CIF 107365424 for a period of one year having maturity date 04.04.2023 alongwith interest @ 5.62% p.a. It is alleged that complainants visited the OP No.1 to get back the matured amount but the complainants were 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 and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs thereby causing monetary loss, mental and physical harassment to the complainants. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,52,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum till realization and also to pay Rs.2.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides Rs.55,000/- as 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 admitted that as per finacle software/records of Post office, the Account No.020031680014 was opened on 16.02.2022 in RD Scheme with denomination of Rs.1500/- per month at SOL ID 12702100 of Bhiwani Head Post Office in the name of Soosamma R/o H.No.158, Krishna Colony, Bhiwani and Consumer Identification File (CIF) No.409638967 and 107365424 does not relates to this account number. Further, as per Finacle Software/records of Post Office, the account no.020031680722 has been opened on 16.02.2022 in RD Scheme with denomination of Rs.1000/- per month at SOL ID 12702100 of Bhiwani Head Post Office in the name of Samuel, Behind Gawar Factory, Bhiwani and CIF No.409638967 and 107365424 does not relates to this account number. Furthermore, as per Finacle Software/records of Post Office, the account no.020029054536 has been opened on 18.01.2022 in NSC 8 Scheme issued at SOL ID48688901 belong to MP Circle in the name of Harijee Singh, Singrauli in Madhya Pradesh Postal Circle and the said account number does not relates to any post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division and CIF No. 409638967 and 107365424 does not relates to this account number.  As per Finacle Software/records of Post Office, the account no.020047789656 has been opened on 17.08.2022 in Time Deposit (TD 2) Scheme at SOL ID 50005401 belong to Telengana Circle in the name of A Anjanyulu, 6-472 Dwaraka Nagar, Hyderabad in Telengana Postal Circle and the said account number 020046789656 does not relate to post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division and CIF No. 409638967 and 107365424 does not relates to this account number. Further, as per office records, no any amount was deposited in the said accounts on their account opening dates. As such, issue of passbook by OPs does not arise. It is urged that complainant has alleged to deposit the amount with the OPs through saving bank account but account number has not been mentioned by the complainant in this complaint. 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 no.1 was filed as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-9 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 document Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 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 amounts has placed on record photocopy of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 which reveal that the amounts of Rs.11,52,000/- was deposited  with the OPs but the Ops did not return the amount after maturity of the same. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued 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 documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 whereby it reveals that none of the account(s) as alleged in the complaint belong to complainants rather they are in the name of other persons duly mentioned in written version of the OPs. 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 amount as prayed for in the complaint is not due against the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint 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 OPs failed to return the amounts to complainants on maturity.  In such a situation, the OPs 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 written arguments, 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.11,52,000/- (Rs. Eleven lac fifty two 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.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five 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.