Haryana

StateCommission

A/130/2022

SUBHASH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

POST OFFICE - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. SINHA

08 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.130 of 2022

 

Date of Institution:04.04.2022

Date of final hearing:20.03.2024

Date of pronouncement:08.04.2024

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Subhash Jain aged about 73 years, son of Shri Mamman Chand Jain, R/o House No. 2441, Sector-2, Faridabad, Haryana.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Tarun Sinha, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      The Superintendent Post Office Main Post Office, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad.

2.      A.S.P.M. L.S.G. Ballabgarh District, Faridabad – 121004.

3.      C.P.M.G. Ambala 107, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. Pin – 133001.

….Respondents.

Through counsel Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Tarun Sinha, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, counsel for respondents.

 

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.03.2019, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (now ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Shri Subhash Jain) was partly allowed and the opposite parties (‘OPs’) were directed as under:-

“…Opposite parties are directed to process these claims.

In the light of the above observations, the opposite parties are directed to complete the processing of the complainant’s file and reach a decision within 30 days from the receipt of this order.  It must be kept in mind that if the facts of the complainant’s case are found to be similar to that of Shri Malkhan Singh & Another quoted above, then the relief granted to the complainant has to be on the same lines.

The complaint is allowed to the aforementioned extent. The complainant is given liberty to approach any competent court/Forum in case he is aggrieved by the decision of the opposite parties.”

 

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant obtained the three FDRs/MIS account NO. 3278405517 amounting to Rs.8,10,000/- and senior citizen account No.3268826305 for Rs.3,00,000/- and senior citizen account No.3275866073 for Rs.1,50,000/- in totaling Rs.12,60,000/- from the OPs and the said FDRs have been matured and after its maturity the complainant also requested to make the FDR amount alongwith interest but the OPs intentionally and knowingly refused the legitimate request of the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant was taking the interest amount in the month of November, 2016 from the OPs by putting the govt. stamp of the post office then why in the month of December, 2016 the post office copy had been declared false and the original copy was lying with the OPs record.  Thereafter, the complainant made complaints alongwith other persons to the police at Police Station, City Ballabgarh and an FIR bearing No.1100/2016 was registered against the employees of post & telephone department Ballabgarh alongwith agent Prem Kumar Hans and Sanjay Hans. It was further alleged that the complainant requested to the OPs to make an amount of Rs.12,60,000/- but, the OPs finally refused on 05.01.2018 to the legitimate request of the complainant. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, Ops have appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their written versions and stated therein that as per the record of Ballabgarh Main Post Office Account No.3278405517, 3268846305 and account No.327586607 mentioned in this para were not opened in Main Post Office, Ballabgarh in the name of the complainant.  It was submitted that above mentioned accounts had not been allowed by the competent authority, for the reason that the complainant’s account was not opened in the post office, hence the money was not accounted for at any point of time in the account of OPs. It was further submitted that there was nothing due against OPs as alleged in the complaint. Further, the OPs denied other allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 1^st (supra).

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, Appellant-complainant (Shri Subhash Jain) has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission by acceptance of present appeal.

 6.                  Arguments have been advanced by Shri Tarun Sinha, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondents. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                Before going on merits, this Commission has to decide the application for condonation of delay which was filed along with the present appeal. There is a delay of 1059 days in filing of the present appeal and condonation of which has been sought through an application by the present appellant. The ground taken in the application on behalf of the appellant is that he was suffering from ill health and could not contact his counsel for collection of documents and in the meantime, learned counsel filed execution application before learned District Commission and same was disposed off on 21.01.2020. Further, the second plea which was taken is that because of Covid-19 pandemic and appellant preferred to stay at home due to his ill health. Thereafter, he collected the entire documents in the first week of March, 2022 and preferred the present appeal and finally it was submitted that due to abovementioned reasons delay was occurred, which was not willful or intentional and the same may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the circumstances of the case.

8.               While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the learned District Commission while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law.

9.                While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words “Sufficient Cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as “State of Nagaland Vs. Limpk A.O. and others, 2005 (3) SCC 752” has held as under:-

“11. What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975) (2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari  (Air 1969 SC 575) as Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

10.              In the instant case, this Commission is of the considered view that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 1059 days in filing of the present appeal is hereby condoned.

11.              Even on merits also, as per the basic averments raised in the present appeal including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the matter is covered and similar to “Malkhan Singh” case or not?

12.              It is an admitted fact that there were number of account holders of MIS who were cheated by the Prem Hans and Sanjay Hans. It is also admitted fact that the aggrieved depositors Shri Malkhan Singh and Smt. Mamta Bhardwaj as well as other depositors were awarded  the respective principal amounts and they have also filed applications with the OPs for the interest for the relevant period.

13.              It is evident from the records that learned District Commission summoned the records of Shri Malkhan Singh’s case during the pendency of complaint and the file was submitted by the OPs.  Thereafter, it was observed by learned District Commission that Shri Malkhan Singh’s case was based on similar facts. So, on the basis of that case, learned District Commission issued directions to OPs and specifically mentioned that “the authorities in postal department cannot pick and choose, granting relief to some and denying the same to some”. Moreover, directions were issued to OPs by learned District Commission that to process the claim of complainant on the basis of Malkhan Singh’s case.

14.              From the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it is clear that learned District Commission ignored that the complainant-present appellant used to withdraw monthly interest himself from the post office from his saving accounts bearing No.1450015, 825444 etc. He withdrew interest amount till November, 2016 and all the entries were made in the passbook which was duly signed by the Post Master, Faridabad. However, in the month of December, 2016 it was the first time when he was informed by OPs-present respondents that there was no account opened in his name. Learned District Commission also ignored the fact that how the appellant-complainant was withdrawing the monthly interest from the post office when the principal amount itself was missing. All these facts are on priority which were to be decided by learned District Commission on merits. Whereas, learned District Commission simply applying the formula of another similar matter issued directions to OPs-present respondents.

15.              In the light of abovementioned discussion, it is established that the impugned order dated 20.03.2019, passed by learned District Commission is not a speaking order, is devoid of any reasoning and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

16.              Hence, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned District Commission to decide it expeditiously afresh on merits after affording proper opportunities to lead their evidence and after hearing both the parties on merits.

17.              Parties are directed to appear before learned District Commission on 03.05.2024 for further proceedings.

18.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

19.              Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

20.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 08^th April, 2024

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III