Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/330/2023

Sneh 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. : 330 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 07.11.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 29.10.2024

                                                                                                      

Sneh Lata age about 70 years, wife of Ramesh Chander son of Sh. Partap Singh R/o 5/177, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani. 

 

          ……Complainant.

 

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 complainant.

                    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 PPF Scheme. So, complainant got opened a PPF account No.1409166717 on 04.12.1999 with OP No.1 and deposited Rs.1,50,000/- in this account on 21.12.2021 and the amount was being deposited every year.  Complainant has submitted that in August 2023, she visited the OP No.1 and got statement of her account and was surprised to know that there was a wrong entry of withdrawal of Rs.19,73,920 on 11.12.2021 with balance shown to be nil whereas complainant never withdrawn such amount. Further there was no entry of deposit of Rs.1.50 lac in the PPF account. Complainant has urged that as per instruction of Department of Posts and Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, the payments would be made below Rs.20,000/- by cash and above this amount, by account payee cheque or transfer to post office saving account. It is alleged that OP No.1 stated that there is no amount is deposited in such type of PPF account of complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs thereby causing monetary loss, mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OPs to pay Rs.21,23,920/- (Rs.19,73,920/- + Rs.1,50,000) alongwith interest prevailing at the time of deposit or as assessed by the Commission from the date of deposit till realization and also to pay Rs.5.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides expenses of litigation. 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 submitted that as per finacle software/records of Post Office, Account No.1409166717 has been opened under PPF (15 years) Scheme with SOL ID12702100 in the name of Sneh Lata wife of Sh. Ramesh Lamba  and same has been closed on 11.12.2021 with Rs.19,73,920/- by crediting in Saving Bank (Joint) Account No.5381149106 in the name of Ramesh Chander and Smt. Sneh Lamba. The matter of deposit of the amount of Rs.1.50 lac on 21.12.2021 in the account no.140916671 does not arise.  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 complainant, affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, in evidence of OPs, affidavit of Mr.Ashok Kumar Verma, Post Master, Bhiwani as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 were tendered and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file minutely. Written arguments filed on behalf of OPs. 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 the deposit of the alleged amounts has placed on record photocopy of passbook of Post Office issued to complainant as Ex. C-1 which reveal that the amount of Rs.19,09,767/- was credited in the account of complainant on 08.01.2021 and Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by complainant in this account on 21.12.2021 as is also clear from the receipt Ex. C-2.  As per Ex. C-3, an amount of Rs.19,73,920/- was withdrawn from the account of complainant on 11.12.2021 and the balance in this account has been shown as zero but the passbook Ex. C-1 reveals that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited in this account on 21.12.2021 and the balance amount has been shown as Rs.21,95,360/- on 21.12.2021 which means that the amount was not withdrawn by the complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the OPs has not released the amounts 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 Annexure R-1, whereby it reveals that an amount of Rs.19,73,920/- was withdrawn from the said account of complainant on 11.12.2021 and balance was zero on this date and as statement Annexure R-2, the account became close on such date. Thus Learned counsel for OPs has pointed out that no question of deposit of the amount arise on 21.12.2021. The counsel has argued 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. It has been argued that Ran Singh specifically mentioned in his application dated 03.01.2023 has mentioned that “he had deposited his amount to the agent.” Thus learned counsel for OPs has argued that no question of deposit of the alleged amount by complainant arise. 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 complainant with OPs but the amount was not returned to the complainant and they have no justification, to withhold the amounts of complainant as she was in need of the deposited amounts. 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 as per written arguments of OPs, Sh. Lila Krishan Mehta 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 complainant. 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.21,23,920/- (Rs. Twenty one lac twenty three thousand nine hundred twenty) to the complainant 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 complainant.  

 (ii)     To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iv)     Also to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the 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.