Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/291/2023

Sanjeev Kumar - 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. : 291 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 05.10.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 29.10.2024

 

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

 

2. Pooja wife of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar 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 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 of Post office as it will pay more interest.  So, complainants deposited Rs.6,80,000/- in their name on 09.09.2022 vide account no.020048723933 CIF No.304398181 & CIF No.304398280 with the OP No.1 and maturity date of the scheme was 09.09.2023 and the amount was payable alongwith interest Rs.38,175/-.  It is alleged that complainants 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 complainants. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.6,80,000/- alongwith interest prevailing at the time of deposit or as assessed by the Commission 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, 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, Account No.020048723933 was opened on 08.09.2022 with Rs.50,000/- at SOL ID 12450801 in the name of Prince R/o Lowa Khurd Noona Majra, City Jhajjar, Haryana. This account does not belong to Bhiwani Postal Division nor belong to complainants. 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 Sanjeev Kumar 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 alongwith document 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.                 Complainants in order to prove deposit of the alleged amount has placed on record photocopy of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-1 (3 pages)  which reveals that on 09.09.2022, Rs.6,80,000/- was deposited in the aforementioned account of complainants and the date of maturity of the account was on 09.09.2023. 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 on their part and prayed for acceptance of the complaint as prayed for.

7.                 On the other hand, OP side has placed on record document Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 which shows that the alleged account was in the name of one Prince and not in the name of complainants. Thus learned counsel for OPs has argued that no question of deposit of the alleged amount arise. 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 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 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 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 complainants 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.6,80,000/- (Rs. Six lac eighty 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.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen 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.