RESERVED
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Lucknow
Appeal No. 222 of 2012
Unionof India & Others
….Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh
……Respondents
Present:-
- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.
- Hon’ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Dr. Udai Vir Singh, Advocate for the Appellant
Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma for the Respondent
Date: 26.12-2016
Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand, Member-This Appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been filed by Union of India through Superintendent of Post Office, Bulandshahar & Others, against the Judgment &order dated 30.8.2011, passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bulandshahar, in complaint case No 295 of the 2003Ram Singh s/o ShriGauri Shankar, R/o House No 148, Shanti Nagar, Bhood, Bulandshahar. The impugned order which is a majority order and has been assailed through this appeal, is as follows:-
“The complaint is partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed that they pay a sum of principal amount of Rs 5037/- to the complainant within a period of one month and simple interest @ 8% from dated 16.2.2002 to the date of actual payment and the complaint expenses of Rs 500/-“
In brief the Complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased the National Savings Certificates of Rs 2500/- from the opposite parties on dated 16.2.1996. These certificates were due for payment after maturity in a period of 6 years. But these certificates got missing and the complainant searched them here and there and ultimately reached out to the opposite party No 3 on dated 16.2.2002. The Sub-postmaster told him that said National Savings Certificates have already been paid on dated 2.3.2001. When he enquired from the Sub-post Master, that he only was authorized to get the payment of these certificates, then how these certificates have been paid to the other person. The opposite party No3, the Post Master of post office Krishna Nagar, Bulanshahar did not give the satisfactory answer. The complainant reached out to the opposite parties No 1 and 2, making complaint into the matter and requesting them to make the payment but all in vain. Ultimately, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking relief for payment of the National Savings Certificates along with interest and compensation of Rs 5000/- for mental agony and legal expenses of Rs 5000/-. This complaint case was contested by the opposite parties before the District Forum, Bulandshahar. The opposite parties controverted all the allegations of the complaint through the written statement. The opposite parties admitted that the Complainant had purchased the National Savings Certificates for Rs 2500/- and their date of maturity was 16.2.2002. The complainant was known person to the opposite party No 3 as he was working on the post of supervisor in Divisional Telephone office, Bulandshahar. The opposite parties admitted that excessive work load in the office, the premature payment of the certificates was made to the complainant due to mistake. The tallying/ matching of the signatures of the complainant on the application of Savings Certificates with the signatures in record, proves that the complainant has received the payment. The opposite parties also admitted in the written statement that the premature payment of the National Savings Certificates is an error and irregularity. The department is taking action into matter. But the complainant can not take benefit out of it. In the departmental inquiry it was found that the complainant himself has received the payment of National Savings Certificates and no body else. In these circumstances the opposite parties pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.
After hearing both the parties and perusing evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned order by majority. The President’s Judgment dated 30.8.2011 got concurrence of the another member Ms. Renu Sharma 15.11.2011 while the third member MrJagvir Singh delivered a separate order on 15.11.2011 differing with the learned President’s order date 30.8.2011. Through this separate order the learned member has ordered the complaint to be dismissed.
Being aggrieved with the majority order the Appellants have filed this Appeal on the ground that the impugned Judgment is no Judgment in the eye of law particularly with reference to section 14 (2) and 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the impugned Judgment has been signed and pronounced by President and the member on different dates that is on dated 30.8.2011 and 15.11.2011. The Appellants have taken the that the complainant has not lodged the FIR of the lost National Savings Certificates with the police. The appellants admitted that there was an advertent mistake of the staff in making the premature payment of the National Savings Certificates but it does not entitle the complainant to receive the double payment. The appellants assailed the impugned Judgment & Order as perverse and illegal. The appellants prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned Judgment & Order. The Respondent-Complainant did not file the written objections against the appeal.
We heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record on file. Firstly, we have to see the sanctity and validity of the impugned Judgment & Order particularly with reference the Sub-Section 2 and 2A of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The provisions of these sub-sections 2 & 2A of section 14 are being reproduced for ready reference hereunder:-
“14. Finding of the District Forum:-
(2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a proceeding, till it iscompleted, the President and the other member shall continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member.
(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (l)shall be signed by itsPresident and the member or members who conducted the proceeding:
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and one member andthey differ on any point or points, they shall state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the order of the District Forum.”
The provision of sub-section 2 of section 14 mandates that every proceeding referred to in sub–section 1 shall be conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least on member thereof sitting together. In the instant case from the perusal of the impugned Judgment & Order it is evident the Judgment was signed and pronounced by the single member that is the President only on dated on 30.8.2011. The other member Mr. Jagveer Singh has made an endorsement on it that “ I will hear the arguments again. I have not heard the arguments of the opposite party” While the third member Ms. Renu Sharma has made the endorsement “ I have not heard these arguments”. These members pronounced their separate orders on dated 15.11.2011. These endorsements on the impugned Judgment and Order clearly shows that in the instant case the mandate of the provision of sub-section 2 of section 14 of Consumer protection Act has not been complied with and rather it has been violated. In these circumstances the impugned Judgment & Order is a nullity in the eye of law. Moreover so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the learned District Forum have heldthat the Opposite Parties –Appellants were responsible to produce the report of the signature expert to prove their case. We don’t agree with the observation of the learned district forum. It should have been the other way round because in the instant case, since the Complainant has challenged the genuineness of the signature on the application of taking premature payment of the National Savings Certificates, he should have brought report of signature expert. The burden of proving the said signatures as being forced lies on the person who challenges their genuineness. For complete discharge of the justice, he should have been provided the opportunity to prove his case and also asked to get the report of signature expert challenging the signatures to be forged. In the light of the above discussion and observation the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned Judgment & Order to be set aside.
Order
The Appeal is allowed.The impugned Judgment & Order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with the directions that the opinion of the signature expert be sought at the cost of the complainant and decide the case afresh in the light of the fresh evidence by the parties.The parties to bear their own costs. Hence no order so as to the costs.
(Vijai Varma) (Mahesh Chand)
Presiding Member Member
S.k. st. c-5
