Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/199/2023

Jeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post office - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Nayyar

27 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. :  199 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             :  20.07.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               :  27.11.2024

 

Jeet Kaur wife of Sh. Ishwar Singh R/o H.No.183, Near School, Jamawari District Hisar.

 

 

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

 

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, complainant deposited Rs.4,29,000/- in her name on 09.12.2020 vide account no.4986767629 and maturity date of the scheme  was 09.12.2022. It has been submitted that after maturity date, complainant approached the OP No.1 to get back the amount alongwith interest but the complainant was shocked to know that there is no any amount deposited in their name.  Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service and 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.4,29,000/- alongwith interest as assessed by the Commission and also to pay appropriate sum as compensation for harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. 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.4986767629 was opened on 16.12.2020 in MIS Scheme at SOL ID 70004202 in the name of Sima Sen Gupta R/o 18/1 M N Roy Road, Rajpur, Sonarpur City South 24 Parganas of State West Bengal and the said account number 4986767629 neither relates to any post office under jurisdiction of Bhiwani Postal Division nor relates to the complainant Smt. Jeet Kaur. Hence, the matter of issue of passbook does not arise. Thus the OPs denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 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-1 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.                 Complainant in order to prove deposit of the alleged amounts has placed on record photocopy of passbook of OP department as Ex. C-1 which reveals that the alleged amount of Rs.4,29,000/- was deposited  with the OPs in the account number mentioned in the complaint but the Ops did not return the amount when it was asked to return. Thus learned counsel for complainant has argued the OPs has not released the amount to the 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 Annexure -1 whereby it reveals that the account as alleged in the complaint does not belong to complainant rather it is in the name of one Sima Sen Gupta duly mentioned in written version of the OPs and stated that the alleged amount was never deposited by complainant in the said account.  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 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. As such, the counsel has vehemently argued that the amount as prayed for in the complaint is not due against the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint 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 OPs failed to return the amount to complainant when the amount was asked to return. In such a situation, the OPs 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 complainant. As per pleadings of the OPs in some connected cases and written arguments, 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 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.4,29,000/- (Rs. Four lac twenty nine thousand) 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.10,000/- (Rs. Ten 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:27.11.2024