Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/300/2023

sunil kumar - 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. : 300 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 05.10.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 27.11.2024

 

1. Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Ran Singh R/o Meham Road, Near Honda Agency, Bhiwani.

 

2. Jyoti wife of Sh. Sunil Kumar 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 his hard earned money in post office scheme, approached OP No.1 who suggested to deposit the amount in Term/Time Deposit Scheme & NSC for one year as it will pays more interest.  So, Rs.4,54,000/- was deposited on 20.11.2021 in the name of complainants in NSC Scheme vide A/c No.020024431650 and CIF Nos.337194689 & 337195555 was issued by OPs with date of maturity as 20.11.2026. Further, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was also got deposited in the name of complainants on 20.01.2022 in Term Deposit Scheme vide account no.020029264430 & CIF Nos.337194689 & 337195555 with date of maturity as 20.01.2027. It has been submitted the aforementioned amounts were got deposited from their SB account No.3604373556 with OPs. Complainants have submitted that in the last week of July 2023, they requested the Ops to get back the amounts alongwith its benefits but they were shocked to know that there was not any amount deposited in the name of complainants in such type of account. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainants alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops thereby causing monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops to pay Rs.6,54,000/- alongwith interest per annum prevailing at the time of deposit or as assessed by the Commission from the date of deposit till realization and further to pay compensation for harassment besides Rs.55,000/- towards 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 are not consumer, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that as per finacle software/post office records, the account No.020024431650 was opened on 18.11.2021 with denomination of Rs.500/- per month at SOL ID 86100801 in the name of Sudhamani B R/o Akash Bhavan Kavadipuram Nagar-58, City Kollam, State-Kerala does not belong to Bhiwani HO and no any other post office of Bhiwani Postal Division and CIF Nos.337194689 and 337195555 do not belong to this account. This account number relates to Kerala Circle/State and further does not relate to complainants. As per rule, it is not possible to deposit Rs.4,54,000/- in RD Scheme account having denomination of Rs.500/- per month. RD account is opened for 5 years in which an equal monthly installment is required to be deposited  every month for five years.

                    As per records, RD account no.020029264430 was opened on 20.01.2022 with denomination of Rs.2000/- per month at SOL ID 62862001 in the name of S Umaima Rifza R/o 1/46 Pallivasal ST Amaniya Nagar, City Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, does not belong to Bhiwani HO and no any other office of Bhiwani Postal Division. CIF Nos. 337194689 and 337195555 do not belong to this account. This account number does not relate to Haryana Circle. As per rule, it is not possible to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- in RD Scheme account having denomination of Rs.2000/- per month. RD account is opened for 5 years in which an equal monthly installment is required to be deposited every month for five years. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

3.                 In evidence of complainants, affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, in evidence of OPs, affidavit of Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, HSG-I Post Master, Bhiwani Ex. RW1/A alongiwth documents R-1 to R-5 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.                 Complainants in order to prove deposit of the alleged amounts have placed on record photocopies of passbook issued by the OPs as Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 whereby amounts of Rs.4,54,000/- & Rs.2,00,000/- have been deposited in the alleged accounts and the amounts were transferred from the SB Account No.3604373556 of complainants with OP No.1. The grievance of the complainants are that the OPs have not released the amount when it was asked to return prematurely despite visiting the office of OPs several times asking them to release the maturity amount, but the OPs have failed to redress the genuine request of the complainant.

7.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OPs has vehemently argued that the alleged accounts does not exist in the name of complainant thus no question to deposit any amount by complainants in such accounts arise.  Learned counsel for OPs has pointed out that complainants intentionally concealed the name of agent namely Lila Krishan Mehta and urged that the alleged amounts may be deposited by complainants with the agent at their own faith but the amount was never deposited with the OPs. As such, no liability can be fastened against the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 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 amounts were 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 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.6,54,000/- (Rs. Six lac fifty four 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 to the complainants.

(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