DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.45 of 2002
Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla,
S/o Sri Ambika Prasad Shukla,
R/o village- Harbaspur,
Post- Harbaspur, Kanpur.
……Complainant
Versus
- National Savings Commissioner,
National Saving Organisation,
Government of India ,
Nagpur.
- Regional Director,
National Savings Organisation,
Government of India,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
- Deptt. of Post,
Through Post Master,
Chowk Branch, Lucknow.
- Smt. Ruksana Begum, Agent (Post Office),
C/o Apex Consultant,
Sri Balaji Market,
Khunkhunji Road,
- State of Uttar Pradesh,
Through District Magistrate,
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for refund of deposited money of Rs.1,00,000.00 with 18% interest and for payment of Rs.15,000.00 as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as cost of suit.
-2-
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he had invested his whole life savings in the scheme of OP No.1, 2 and 3 through OP No.4 who is an authorized agent of OP No.1, 2 and 3 and she used to motivate investors for investing their savings in the schemes of OP No.1, 2 and 3. Being motivated by the OPs the Complainant on 12.01.2000 deposited Rs.1,00,000.00 with the OP No.4 for the purchase of National Saving Certificate “Kisan Vikas Patra”. Initially the Complainant approached directly to the post office of OP No.3 for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra but the employees of OP No.3 refused to sell the Kisan Vikas Patra and proposed the name of OP No.4 and asked the Complainant to come through the agency of OP No.4 for purchasing the Kisan Vikas Patra. After few weeks of deposit of money the Complainant regularly kept on contacting the OP No.3 and 4 regarding the issuance of certificate of Kisan Vikas Patra but the OP No.3 and 4 kept the Complainant under waiting on pretext that all the formalities have been completed and soon after the signature of signing authority Kisan Vikas Patra will be issued to the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant through newspaper reports and also through his personal visits at the office of OP No.3 came to know that the OP No.4 with the connivance of the employees of OP No.3 had duped thousands of investors of their hard earned money and the local police have also arrested the OP No.4 alongwith some employees of OP No.3 on charges of fraud. Overwhelmed with deep apprehension regarding the safety of his money the Complainant immediately handed over to the OP No.3 several letters for verification of investments of Complainant. In response to Complainants representations as above the OP No.3 sent a letter dated 04.07.2000 whereby the OP No.3 denied having issued any Kisan Vikas Patra upto 03.07.2000 against the receipt of OP No.4 as issued to the Complainant. At the receipt of letter dated 04.07.2000 the Complainant
-3-
again sent several letters to the OP No.3 demanding from the OP No.3 either to issue Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of Complainant or to refund the deposited amount of Complainant without any delay. Till date neither the OPs have issued National Saving Certificate Kisan Vikas Patra to the Complainant nor they have refunded the deposited amount of Complainant despite the fact that the Complainant has regularly been making representations to the OPs. For any fraudulent act of OP No.4 an authorized agent of OP No.1, 2 and 3 all the OPs are liable. The OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as in spite of deposit of Rs.1,00,000.00 the OPs neither issued Kisan Vikas Patra nor they refunded the deposited amount of the Complainant, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1 and 2 have filed the WS in the form of affidavit Sri Jameel Asghar, Regional Director wherein it is mainly submitted that they are not liable for issuance of the said NSC or Kisan Vikas Patra as it was issued by OP No.3 Department of Post where these patras are sold/made available, hence they are not liable for alleged misappropriation committed by OP No.4. Besides the OP No.4 was appointed as an agent by State Government, therefore the State Government, being the appointing authority has to bear the losses but the State Government has not been made a party, therefore it is not possible to adjudicate this case and hence it is not maintainable. In the instant case, the fraud was committed by OP No.4, therefore only OP No.4 is responsible. Besides the complaint concerns with the commission of an offence triable under the IPC by a Civil and/or Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction and that it cannot be disposed of under the summary jurisdiction provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Besides the Complainant is not the consumer under the aforesaid Act, therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
-4-
The OP No.3 has filed the WS in the form of affidavit of Sri Baij Nath, Senior Post Master, Chowk Head Post Office, Lucknow wherein it is mainly submitted that the OP No.4 was appointed as an agent by the State Government and as per the rules the losses of the investors are to be realized from the agents and/or their sureties. The agents are not appointed by the Department of Post and Postal Department is not responsible for misdeeds of the agents. The Complainant has not deposited the amount with the post office for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra, therefore the post office is not liable for issuance of any Kisan Vikas Patra to the Complainant in lieu of the sum in question. The receipts in question do not indicate anywhere that the OP No.4 has issued such receipt for and on behalf of the Department of Post. Besides the investors are always advised to transact through cross cheques and in case of any complaint to contact the Collector/Deputy Commissioner of the District and not the Postal Department. The answering OP did not instruct the Complainant to approach the OP No.4 for purchasing of Kisan Vikas Patra. In fact the Complainant chose the OP No.4 for allegedly purchasing the Kisan Vikas Patra with the intention of sharing the commission of 1% which the OP No.4 was entitled to on the principle amount in between themselves. There appears to be bonafide apprehension that the whole complaint case may be based on nefarious motives and ill intention of the Complainant to defraud the Department of precious public money, first of all by handing over the alleged sum to the OP No.4 and then filing the above complaint seeking refund for the sum from OP No.3. The Department of Post is not responsible for the acts and omissions and commissions of the OP No.4. The OP No.3 has no concern with the subject issue and has been dragged as a party to the above complaint case unnecessarily, hence the case is liable to be dismissed with misjoinder of the parties. The complaint therefore deserves to be dismissed against the answering OP.
-5-
Since none appeared from the side of OP No.4, hence the case proceeded exparte vide orders passed on 26.03.2003.
Notice was issued to OP No.5 but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.5 vide order dated 27.05.2015.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 7 annexures and 9 annexures with the complaint. The OP No.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit of Sri S.L. Kureel, Regional Director, National Savings. The OP No.3 has filed the affidavit of Sri Rahul Sharma, Senior Post Master, Chowk Head Post Office, Lucknow and 2 annexures with the WS.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh with OP No.4, the agent of the OPs for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra to be issued by OP No.3 but the Kisan Vikas Patras were not issued to the Complainant and when the Complainant demanded the Kisan Vikas Patra or to refund the amount then the OP No.3 and 4 refused to do so, therefore the OP No.3 and 4 have committed deficiency in service by not providing the Kisan Vikas Patras and the OP No.1, 2 and 5 have committed deficiency in service as they were the appointing authority of agent of OP No.4.
From the facts of the case it is borne out that the OP No.4 was allegedly the agent of the OP No.1, 2 and 3 and that she received the amount of Rs.1.00 lakhs from the Complainant for the purpose of purchasing of the Kisan Vikas Patra for the Complainant. The Complainant has filed photocopies of two receipts of Rs.50,000.00 each as annexure 1 and 2 whereby it is clear that the amount of Rs.1.00 lakh was received by Rukhsana the OP No.4. The receipts are of the Naitonal Savings Organisation. This amount according to the Complainant was given for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras
-6-
for the Complainant. The Complainant has also supported this fact through his affidavit and therefore it is clear that the Complainant had paid Rs.1.00 lakh to the OP No.4 Rukhsana for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras for the Complainant. The OP No.4 has not appeared nor has filed any WS or counter affidavit, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the Complainant made on oath that the Complainant had deposited Rs.1.00 lakh to the Rukhsana for issuing Kisan Vikas Patras by the OP No.3. The Complainant has also alleged that he was not given the Kisan Vikas Patras for which the amount was paid by him to OP No.4. So, now, here a question arises as to whether the amount received by OP No.4 is to be reckoned as the payment made to OP No.1, 2, 3 and 5 as she was working as their agent who was authorized to receive payment from the individuals with regard to the schemes of National Saving Organisation. The Complainant has categorically stated that Rukhsana OP No.4 is the authorized agent of OP No.1, 2 and 3 but the OP No.1, 2 and 3 have contested this contention of the Complainant on the ground that the OP No.4 is not their authorised agent. In support of their contention the OP No.1, 2 and 3 have filed a photocopy of the standardized agency system Rule 5 of which deals with appointing authority of the authorised agent which is as under “the authorised agent will be appointed by the officers authorised by the State Government (Collector/Deputy Commissioner of the District. Tehsildar and Block Development Officers and other gazetted officers).” In view of the aforesaid provision, it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the OP No.1, 2 and 3 that the appointing authority of the agent is the State Government OP No.5 and not OP No.1, 2 and 3. It is also further argued by the learned Counsel for the OP No.1,2 and 3 quoting provision 24 (a) of the standardized agency system wherein it is provided that “In case of misappropriation of Investors’ money by the agent, the
-7-
Appointing Authorities concerned should deal with the matter and take suo moto prompt action in the matter and should see that the investigation of the cases are not delayed at any circumstances. It is the duty of the Appointing Authority to obtain information, ascertain the extent of such misappropriation, locate the defrauded investors, realize the losses from the agents and/or their sureties and should also take steps for issue/antedated of certificates, etc. The Paying Authority is also responsible for proper payment of commission.” Since as per the aforesaid provision of the standardized agency system the appointing authority of the agent is the State Government, therefore in the instant case OP No.5 the State Government comes out to be the appointing authority of the agent OP No.4. It is noticeable that the OP No.5 was issued notice but none appeared, hence the case proceeded exparte against OP No.5 vide orders passed on 27.05.2015. Since no reply has been filed by OP No.5, therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of OP No.1, 2 and 3 which is based on the rules provided by them that the appointing authority of OP No.4 is the State Government OP No.5. Therefore, it is concluded that the OP No.5 is the appointing authority of OP No.4. As per provision 24 (a) of the standardized agency system which has been quoted above, it is clear that it is the duty of the appointing authority i.e. OP No.5 in the instant case, to obtain information ascertain the extent of misappropriation, locate the defrauded investors, realize the losses from the agents and/or their sureties and should also take steps for issued/antedated certificates etc. It was concluded in the discussions made above that the OP No.4 received Rs.1.00 lakh from the Complainant for the purchase of Kisan Vikas Patra but she did not give the Kisan Vikas Patras to the Complainant. The OP No.5 is the appointing authority of OP No.4 as has been concluded above, therefore the OP No.5 is also liable for the
-8-
misappropriation of the amount by the OP No.4. On the discussions made above, it is clear that the OP No.4 has committed deficiency in service in not providing the Kisan Vikas Patras to the Complainant and OP No.5 as the appointing authority of OP No.4, is also liable for the deficiency in service of OP No.4. The Complainant has miserably failed to prove that OP No.1, 2 and 3 are directly involved into the transaction, therefore they do not appear have committed any deficiency in service, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No.1, 2 and 3 is concerned. The Complainant appears to have been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation as well as cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.4 and 5 are jointly and severally directed to provide antedated Kisan Vikas Patras of Rs.1.00 lakh w.e.f. 12.01.2000. In case they fail to provide Kisan Vikas Patras from 12.01.2000 then the OP No.4 and 5 will jointly and severally pay Rs.1.00 lakh to the Complainant with 9% interest from 12.01.2000 till the final payment is made to the Complainant.
The OP No.4 and 5 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 27 November, 2015
