JUDGEMENT
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant Sri Mistri Soren, S/o. Late Subal Soren, Vill. Pajerpur, PO: Deoradanga, District: Burdwan being citizen of India and having utmost faith and trust with Indian Postal Authority opened one Savings Bank Account on 28.08.2012 with the Deuradanga sub Post Office and against which one money
1
receipt was issued by one Mr. Mrittunjay Mukherjee, the then sub Post Master of the said sub Post Office. The complainant with a view to meet up his need approached before the Post Office for withdrawal of some amount but he became surprised to find out that no such amount was deposited in the SB account against his name. The complainant has mentioned that after the death of Mrittunjay Mukherjee he approached before the office of the said sub Post Office and came to know the said information about non-deposit of the amount. The original pass book is in the custody of the complainant and he has deposited the available documents i.e. deposit slips, Pass Book and receipts with this complaint. The complainant approached before the sub Divisional Inspector of Posts, Guskara on several occasions and made correspondence with the Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan on 13.11.2013. Thereafter he requested to frame any scheme for disbursement of the said amount, but the Ops have deliberately failed and neglected to take any step over the matter. The Ops have repeatedly assured him that entire amount of the said account will be handed over to him, but to no effect. According to the complainant as the complainant has deposited money in the SB account and in this way he has hired the service of the Ops and for this reason he can easily be termed as consumer. As the Ops have failed to provide due service to him, the same can be termed as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of them, not only that the inaction on behalf of the Ops also proved its deficiency in service. As the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by the Ops, finding no other alternative the complainant has approached before this ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops to return the deposited amount of Rs. 15,000=00 along with interest @9% per annum from the date of its deposit in his favour, Rs. 50,000=00 as compensation due to unfair trade practice, negligent service and deficiency in service.
The OP-1 has contested the complaint by filing written version wherein it is stated that this complaint is based upon a fraud transaction committed by some
2
designating persons, namely, Mrittunjay Mukherjee. From the rules framed under Postal Savings Account it is evident that unless the money alleged to have been deposited appeared in the postal SB pass book issued by the issuing officer, the same cannot be termed as valid deposit and for this reason the postal authority cannot allow anyone for any correspondences or transaction. So the postal authority cannot be held liable or responsible for the money alleged. It should be noted that the rules of such deposit are prescribed in all pass books, but the claimant with a clandestine motive has suppressed the entire fact and mentioned erroneously that his pass book was left to the custody of the said Post Master. It is to be noted that the said Post Master of the sub Post Office has committed suicide and only after the death of Mr. Mrittunjay Mukherjee the complainant reported the entire episode of the said sub Post Office and filed this case alleging fraud transaction. So the behaviour and motive of the complainant is suspicious. The Ops have further submitted that the OP-1 after getting knowledge about the fraud of the Post Master of Deuradanga have already started a departmental proceeding and enquiry through the sub Divisional Inspector of Guskara ceasing of all connected records about the alleged deposits. It may be mentioned that all deposits which were made in the said sub Post Office are posted in the ledger of Guskara Post Office, steps were taken to prevent misuse of stamps and pass books of the branch office, not only the Gram Panchayats, namely, Mahata and Deuradanga have been asked to collect the events of non-payment of money who were informed through concerned BDO, however no information has been received. It has been further contended by the OP-1 that on enquiry it has come to light that a total sum of Rs. 18, 39,921.85 paisa has been involved in this fraud but the enquiry has not yet been completed. The depositors were also informed to produce their respective necessary documents to establish their deposit in the said branch office along with due claim application, but nobody turned up. But this complainant has rushed to this Ld. Forum for unlawful gain and to malign the postal authority. According to the OP-1 such complaint related to fraud practice cannot be adjudicated by this ld. Forum and the same can only be adjudicated in
3
Criminal Court. If the complainant is a bonafide depositor he will be paid, but it was his bounden duty to co-operate with the Department to determine the actual truth. As there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP-1 the complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards compensation as prayed for, but the OP-1 is ready to refund the amount subject to production of the necessary documents. The OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant has submitted one Xerox copy of money receipt dated 28.8.2012 of Rs. 15,000=00 and one application submitted on 13.11.2013 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan by the complainant along with 15 other depositors. The Op-1 has submitted one photocopy of letter dated 17.6.2013 written by the superintendent of Post Offices, Burdwan division to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Kolkata. Both parties have also filed written notes of argument.
-: Decision with reasons :-
During argument ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted as per law of contract any act done by any agent will his master be also liable i.e. vicarious liability. So if as an employee of Postal authority the sub Post Master or Gramin Dak Sevak has done any fraud, the Post Master will also be liable for such mischievous act as his master and the Postal authority will liable to bear all the consequences of its servant. After instituting of such complaint the Postal Authority have sent some claim form to the complainant asking to deposit the claim form appealing the amount to be disbursed. From such act of the OPs, it is crystal clear that the Ops are also accepting such allegations of the complainant against them and the complainant is entitled to get return the deposited money i.e. Rs. 15,000=00 in his SB account with interest along with compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. The ld. Counsel for the Ops has submitted that issuance of pass book is baseless, mere
4
receipt would not mean the valid deposit unless it is appeared in the pass book. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that as in the present case fraud is involved which has been done by the sub Post Master of the alleged Post Office the liability cannot cast upon the shoulder of the OP-1 and in this complaint there was no deficiency in service of the Ops, for this reason the complaint is liable to be dismissed. From the abovementioned argument and upon perusal of the documents filed by the complainant it is seen by us that admittedly the complainant opened an SB account on 28.8.2012 with the OP-3 and the then sub Post Master issued receipt after taking amount from the complainant. From the record we came to know that in the meantime the sub Post Master Mr. Mrittunjay Mukherjee of the OP-3 had committed suicide. The allegation of the complainant is that he did not get money from his deposited amount during his urgency and it was told by the OP-3 that no amount has yet been deposited in the said SB account and in the name of the complainant. As the complainant has failed to get the said amount deposited by him from the Ops and the Ops did not take any fruitful step to return him the said amount along with interest hence this complaint. By producing the Xerox copy of the money receipt the complainant has proved his case successfully that he is entitled to get back the deposited amount along with interest. On the contrary the Ops have failed to show any document before us from which they can prove that the OP-3 has not received the amount from the complainant. The Ops have also failed to prove that the money receipt is fake or false and the seal on the money receipt is also illegal. As a bonafide customer the complainant if very much entitled to get back the deposited amount but though he tried his best to get back the deposited amount, all in vain and at last finding no other alternative filed this complaint before this Ld. Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get some compensation from the Ops for undue harassment and delay to get back the deposited amount.
5
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint is allowed on contest. The Ops are directed either severally or jointly to return the deposited amount of Rs. 15,000=00 along with interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 28.8.2012 till realization of the entire amount within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default, the entire amount (along with interest) shall carry penal interest @9% for the default period. The Ops are further directed to pay either jointly or severally compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,000=00 within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default of making such payment the complainant will be at liberty to put this decree into execution as per provisions of law. With the abovementioned observation the complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.
