CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.908/2006 (Old Case No. 1475/2004)
Sh. Deepesh Kumar,
S/o Shri Sohan Lal,
(through father & Natural Guardian
Shri Sohan Lal)
1, Nirman Vihar, Delhi ……Complainant
Versus
1. The Post Master
Indraprastha Head Post Office,
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi
2. Ms. Anita Aggarwal,
RD No.2151
705, Panchmari,
Kaushambi,
Distt. Ghaziabad (UP).
Also at: B-22, Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
3. The Regional Director
National Savings,
4, Din Dayal Upadhay Marg,
New Delhi ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 24.09.2004 Date of Order : 14.10.2015
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The complaint was decided by Ld. Predecessors of this Forum vide their order dated 03.07.2007. OP No.1 filed an appeal No.562/2007 before the State Commission, Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 11.07.2007. OP No.2 Ms. Anita Aggarwal filed a Revision Petition No.4272/2007 before the National Commission, Delhi. The Revision Petition was allowed and the order of this Forum as well as order of State Commission was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to this Forum to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties including OP No.2. The Forum was directed to decide the complaint within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties. The appearance of the parties was completed on 24.08.15.
At this stage, we advert to the facts which are stated in the order dated 03.07.2007. The same are reproduced as hereunder:
“The Complainant intended to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in the MIS Scheme launched by OP-1. The Complainant through her father approached the Post Master of OP-1 for this purpose. The Postmaster introduced him to OP-2 for doing the needful for deposit of Rs.1.00 lac in the MIS Scheme. Accordingly, the father of the Complainant handed over a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to OP-2. OP-2 being a lawful agent issued twenty receipts of cash deposit of Rs.5,000/- each. The receipts were issued in the name of Complainant under guardianship of Shri Sohan Lal. OP-2 asked the Complainant to collect the Pass Book shortly. But Pass Book was never issued inspite of various visits. The OP-2 was appointed as agent by OP-3 which supervises and control of all Saving Schemes including MIS Scheme. Later on, neither the Pass Book was issued nor money was refunded to the Complainant. The Complainant suffered a great deal of mental, physical and financial trauma due to collusive, illegal act of OPs i.e. usurping the money. The Complainant prayed for directions to OPs to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest as per MIS Scheme, cost and compensation.
Notices were issued to OPs. OP-1 appeared and filed the reply taking some frivolous objections. On merit, OP-1 submitted that agents of MIS Scheme works under the supervision and control of OP-3. OP-1 pleaded that it is the duty of agent to deposit the amount in the Post Office i.e. OP-1. OP-1 specifically pleaded that OP-2 did not deposit the amount with OP-1 and OP-1 is not liable to the Complainant. OP-2 appeared and filed the reply denying the receipt of cash amount from the Complainant. OP-2 even denied issuing any receipts in favour of Complainant. OP-2 denied the averment of complaint in toto. OP-3 appeared and filed the reply admitting the appointment of OP-2 as SAS Agent vide RD 2151 on 16.05.1984. OP-3 also admitted the factum that OP-2 was lawful agent as on date of deposit of amount by the Complainant.
OP No.3 further pleaded that OP-3 is an independent Govt. Department which has been assigned the operation of the Scheme by Govt. OP-3 further pleaded that FIR has been registered against OP-2. OPs denied any deficiency of service on their respective parts and prayed for dismissal of complaint.”
Here, we wish to add some important facts appearing in the pleadings of the parties which have direct bearing on the decision of the complaint. As per the averments made in the complaint, Sh. Damnesh Kumar, Chief Post Master of OP-1 had introduced the father of the complainant to OP-2 and Sh. Damnesh Kumar had verified the identity of OP-2 and it was on his recommendation that the father of the complainant had handed over Rs. 1 Lakh in cash for deposit in MIS Scheme of OP-1 to OP-2. However, in its reply, OP-1 has emphatically denied these facts in specific words.
On a very close scrutiny of the file we find that the affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal (Father of the complainant), affidavit of Sh. Damnesh Kumar, Chief Post Master on behalf of OP-1 and affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Regional Director (Sr.) of OP-3 have been filed in evidence. No affidavit in evidence has been filed by OP-2 Mrs. Anita Aggarwal.
We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for OPs and have also carefully gone through the record.
Admitted facts are that OP-3 had appointed OP-2 as SAS agent and OP-2 was thus authorized to collect money from the intending purchasers to be invested in MIS scheme launched by OP-1.
As stated hereinabove, the case of OP-2 is of total denial. Therefore, the question to be decided by the Forum is, whether the complainant’s father had, in fact, given Rs. 1 Lakh to OP-2 in the presence of Chief Postmaster of OP-1 and OP-2 had issued 20 receipts of Rs. 5000/- each to the complainant.
During the course of arguments, it is argued on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3 that under the said MIS scheme the OP-2 was not authorized to collect more than Rs. 5000/- from intending investors at one time and, therefore, she had issued 20 receipts of Rs. 5000/- each in the name of the complainant.
In his affidavit the complainant’s father has reiterated the averments made in the complaint to the effect that OP-2 had been introduced to him by Sh. Damnesh Kumar, Chief Postmaster of OP-1 and it is at his instance that the complainant’s father had given to OP-2 a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh in order to deposit the same under the MIS Scheme. In his affidavit, Sh. Damnesh Kumar, Chief Postmaster of OP-1 has specifically denied that the complainant had come to him and met him and he had introduced OP-2 to the complainant. According to him, neither the complainant nor his father had met him nor had called OP-2 for investment of money under the MIS scheme. He has, however, stated that he had made a complaint to OP-3 against OP-2 for not doing the business properly and for cheating the public vide complaints OP-1/1 to OP-1/3. Sh. Damnesh Kr., Chief Post Master of OP-1 was acting under the discharge of his official duties. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disbelieve his version in the absence of any evidence to prove any malafide intention against him. We feel it highly unsafe to disbelieve his testimony.
There is evidence on the record to prove that the OP-2 had been cheating the public. Complaints made against her by Sh. Damnesh Kumar, Chief Post Master of OP-1 are the direct proof of this fact. It is also an undisputed fact that FIR No. 310/2004 was lodged against OP-2 at PS IP Estate, New Delhi and investigation was ultimately transferred to Economic Wings of Crime Branch.
Photocopies of the 20 receipts have been filed on the record. We have tallied the signatures of OP-2 made by her on her written statement with the signatures appearing on the 20 receipts and we do not feel any hesitation in holding that the signatures on the written statement of OP-2 and signatures appearing on the 20 receipts are done by one and the same person and she is the OP-2 and none else. Therefore, we hold that it is OP-2 who had in fact received Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant’s father with a promise to invest the same in the name of the complainant in the MIS scheme launched by OP-1 but she did not do so and cheated the complainant/his father.
In view of above discussion, we hold that OP-1 & OP-3 cannot be held liable to be deficient in service or unfair trade practice. On the other hand, we hold the OP-2 guilty of unfair trade practice.
In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint against OP-2 Mrs Anita Aggarwal and direct her to refund Rs. 1 Lakh along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation to the complainant. We also direct her to pay Rs. 10,000/- in lumpsum for mental agony and litigation charges to the complainant. She shall comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which she shall become liable to pay Rs. 1 Lakh along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 14.10.15.
Case No. 908/06
14.10.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed and the OP-2 is directed to refund Rs. 1 Lakh along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation to the complainant. We also direct her to pay Rs. 10,000/- in lumpsum for mental agony and litigation charges to the complainant. She shall comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which she shall become liable to pay Rs. 1 Lakh along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
