KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.715/2003

JUDGMENT DATE : 29/3/2008

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

The Postmaster,

Murickassery.                                         : APPELLANT

Vs

1. Rejimol,

Mallappallil, Murickassery.

2. Joshwa.P.C.

Treasurer, Idukki Colony                       : RESPONDENTS

(former Postmaster, Murukkassery)

3. Annamma Joseph,

Vimalalayam, Murukkassery.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the fist opposite party in OP.No.105/03 in the file of CDRF, Idukki and the appeal is filed challenging the order of the Forum directing the appellant to settle the account of the complainant within 15 days on payment of the deposit amount of Rs.6,600/-, interest and other benefits due as per the deposit scheme and cost of Rs.500/-.

2. The case of the complainant is that she had opened a Recurring Deposit Account with the first opposite parties the 2^nd opposite party was the then Post Master and the 3^rd opposite party was the Mahila Pradhan Agent through wherein the account was opened. As per the scheme the complainant has to deposit @ Rs.120/- per month for a period of 5 years. But she could not deposit the entire installments on account of financial difficulties. The last 5 months payments were not remitted. When the period was over in February 2003 she approached the 1^st opposite party for closure of account and return of the amount but the request was turned down.

3. The 1^st opposite party/appellant has contended that as per the post office records the complainant has deposited only Rs.2,040/- ie, 17 instalments. The last instalment was on 30.11.99. Subsequently the account was closed on 1.6.01 and the amount with interest due and default fee were paid through the 3^rd opposite party, the agent who was authorized. It is contended that the allegations of fraud and malpractices alleged in the complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner and hence proceedings are not maintainable. Evidently the pass book was left with an agent which is against the instructions entered on the back of the pass book. The closure of the RD account happened on account of negligence of the complainant and hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate. There is no evidence that the opposite party has connived in the fraud perpetuated.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant, DW1 who is R2, Exts.P1 and P2.

5. The appellant has sought to produce at the appellate stage the withdrawal form that contained the voucher for the payment of Rs.2,241.20. We find that the introduction of document at this stage and without proof and without sufficient explanation for the delay cannot be allowed.

6. It is the case of the appellant that the R3 the agent is appointed the Block Development Officer and the Supervisor of R3 is the Deputy Director of National Savings Organizations and hence for any deficiency in service of R3 it is the BDO and the Deputy Director of National Savings Organization who should compensate. It is also contended that Ext.P1 is the result for forgery. According to him in the absence of the appointing authority being made a party the proceedings are liable to be remitted back. It is also contended that the withdrawal form produced by the appellant would show that the complainant has signed in the withdrawal form. According to him the above document could not be traced at the time of trial.

7. On a perusal of the evidence adduced we find that the contentions of the appellant cannot be sustained. Ext.P1 the pass book contains the seal of the authorities and initial of the Post Master up to 28.2.2002 which support the case of the complainant that she has remitted 55 installments. Further when PW1 was a cross examined there is no suggestion but the Ext.P1 is a fabricated piece of effects. Further RW1 in his chief examination itself has admitted the entries up to 29.12.2001 in Ext.P1. The above admission is contrary to the case in the version that only up to 30.11.99 the instalments have been remitted. As pointed out by the counsel for the respondent the detailed instructions contained in the Post Office Savings Manual Vol.I page 47 mentions the mode of closing the account that it should be noted in the pass book that the account is closed in the 1^st page of the pass book and below the entry of the final withdrawal and unused pages of the pass book should be closed by means of stamp pad or in red ink. Evidently the above instructions have not been followed as can be seen from Ext.P1 pass book. Evidently the forgery if any, has taken place on account the negligence on the part of the postal authorities. We find that the postal authorities are liable. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

 

S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

 

 

Pk.