Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/305/2023

Riya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Master - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Nayyar

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 305 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 05.10.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 27.11.2024

 

1. Riya (Minor) D/o Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ran Singh R/o Meham Road, Near Honda Agencyu, Bhiwani through her next friend and mother Smt. Darshana Wife of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ran Singh  R/o Meham Road, Near Honda Agency, Bhiwani.
2. Abhishek Kumar (Minor) son of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ran Singh R/o Meham Road, Near Honda Agencyu, Bhiwani through his next friend and mother Smt. Darshana Wife of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Ran Singh  R/o Meham Road, Near Honda 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

 

Shashi Kiran Panwar, 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, Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited in the name of complainant no.1 on 16.04.2021 vide account no.0200210256721 and CIF No.328167200 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme was 16.04.2024. The complainant also deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of complainant no.1 on 04.05.2021 vide account no.020011444597 and CIF No.328167200 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme is 14.05.2026. The complainant further deposited Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of complainant no.1 on 09.12.2021 vide account no.020025848116 and CIF No.328167200 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme is 09.12.2026. Complainant has submitted that she also deposited Rs.2,11,000/- in the name of complainant no.2 on 26.05.2021 vide account no.020089067211 and CIF No.328167200 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme is 26.05.2026.  The amounts were deposited though maturity amount of R.D. with OPs and with some cash deposits with the OPs.  It is submitted that in the last week of July 2023, complainants was in need of money and thus requested the OPs to return their money alongwith benefits thereon but complainant was shocked to know that there is no any amount deposited in their names in such accounts. 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.9,11,000/- alongwith interest prevailing at the time of deposit till realization and also to pay appropriate sum as compensation for harassment besides 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, complainants not  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.0200210256721 does not exist with post office record, As such, account does not exist in the post office record, hence, the matter of CIF No.3281672100 relates to this account does not arise. Further the said account does not relates to complainants.

                    OPs has submitted that as per finacle software/records of Post office, Account No.020011444597 was opened on 04.05.2021 at SOL ID 12702100 in the name of Hina Wadhwa R/o H.No.2208 Sector-13, City Bhiwani, Haryana. This account neither relates to CIF No.3281672100 nor relates to complainants.

                    As per finacle software/records of Post office, R.D. Account No.020025848116 was opened on 08.12.2021 with denomination of Rs.500/- per month at SOL ID52330301 in the name of Latha Bi Jagarlamudi R/o Kommalapadu City Prakasam State Andhra Pradesh. This account number does not belong to Bhiwani H.O. and no any other office of Bhiwani postal Division. CIF No.3281672100 does not belong to this account number. Thus issue of passbook by OP does not arise.  As per rule, it is not possible to deposit Rs.3.00 lac in RD scheme account having denomination of Rs.500/- per month. RD Account is opened for five years in which an equal monthly installments are required to be deposited every month for five years but in this case, the complainants alleged that Rs.3.00 lac was deposited which is wrong hence denied.

                    OPs has submitted that as per finacle software/records of Post office, R.D. Account No.020089067211 was opened on 10.10.2023 with denomination of Rs.500/- per month at SOL ID32302201 in the name of Pappu Lal  R/o VPO Gardara City Bundi, Rajasthan does not belongs to Bhiwani HO and no any other office of Bhiwani postal division. CIF No.3281672100 does not belong to this account. This account relates to Rajasthan State and was opened on 10.10.2023 whereas complainants alleging that the account was opened on 26.05.2021 which is wrong and hence denied.  As per rule, it is not possible to deposit Rs.2,11,000/- in RD scheme account having denomination of Rs.500/- per month. RD Account is opened for five years in which an equal monthly installments are required to be deposited every month for five years but in this case, the complainants alleged that Rs.2.11,000/- was deposited which is wrong hence denied.  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 Darshna as Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to 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 and Annexure R-8 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 amounts has placed on record photocopy of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 which reveals that on the amount of Rs.9,11,000/- was deposited in the accounts of complainants as per details mentioned in the pleadings of complainant. The amounts of Rs.9,11,000/- was transferred in the accounts of complainants No.1 & 2 from their other saving bank accounts Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-7. Learned counsel for complainants has argued that the OPs has not released the amount when it was asked to return in need of complainant 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 Annexures R-1 & R-8 which shows that the alleged accounts do 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.9,11,000/- (Rs. Nine lac eleven thousand) to the complainants, as per their share, 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