IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.7/2016
1.Smti Durga Das : Complainant
W/o: Sri Sunil Das
Resident of Vill: Batiaruka
P.S: Samardalani, P.S: Sootea
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Vs.
1.Smt Sabita Devi. : Opp parties
W/o: Ram Chauhan
Post Master Gamiripal Post Office
Vill: Gamiripal, P.S: Jamuguri
Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
2.The Superintendent of Post Office
Tezpur,Dist: Sonitpur,Assam
Appearance:
Sri Bipul Das, Adv. : For the Complainant
Sri Nayan Moni Goswami,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.1
Md Salim Khan,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.2
Date of argument : 11/10/17, 08/11/17,13/11/17
Date of Judgment : 28-11-2017
JUDGMENT
- The facts brought out by the complainant Smti Durga Das under her complaint, in brief, are that she had deposited Rs.70,000/- (Seventy thousand)only into her SB account No.453021 with the the opposite party No.1 Gomiripal Post Office and on 13-01-2012 had deposited her original passbook to the said opposite party, against which receipt thereof was acknowledged by the opposite party No.1. But on submission of withdrawal letter to withdraw the deposited amount, the opposite party No.1 denied to pay her the amount. Her grievance taken up with the hierarchies in the opposite party, being not redressed, despite service of legal notice and elapsation of sufficient time, the complainant is thus before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and praying a direction to the opposite parties to pay her amount of Rs.70,000/- with 12% interest thereon and Rs.35,000/- as compensation and cost.
- Both the opposite parties have contested the case by filing written versions. Whereas the version of the opposite party No.1 is a total denial of the complainant’s story, the version of the opposite party No.2 in sharp contrast thereof, is however a virtual admission of the fact alleged by the Complainant.The opposite party no.2, trying to fix responsibility on he opposite party No.1 however, tried to distance itself from any liability praying dismissal of the complaint.
- Complainant tendered her evidence-in-chief on affidavit exhibiting four numbers of documents thereunder. While opposite party No.1 tendered her evidence-in chief on affidavit, the opposite party No.2 examined its Supdt. of Post Offices, Darrang Divn. at Tezpur on affidavit. Witnesses were duly cross-examined.
We have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the entire materials available on record including the written arguments submitted by the parties.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
(i)Whether complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act ?
(ii)Whether the opposite party rendered deficient service to the Complainant ?
(iii)Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief under the complaint ? If so, from whom?
DECISION ON THE POINTS
For the sake of convenience of discussion and to avoid repetition, the Points are taken up together for discussion.
- A meticulous scrutiny of the records reveals that the entire case of the complainant revolves around the receipt for Depositors Passbook which is exhibited as Ext.1. Ext-1 bears seal and signature of the authority. Ext-1 contains name of Depositor and Account number. As per Ext-1 name of the depositor is
Durga Das and Account number is 453021. The Passbook was deposited on 13-01-2012 and on that day balance at Depositors credit was Rs.70,000/-only.
- Opposite party No.1 denied the claim of the Complainant in toto. However, the opposite party No.1 during cross-examination stated “It is a fact that after completion of formalities regarding deposit of Passbook, document like Ext-1 is issued”.
- On the otherhand, the opposite party No.2 categorically stated that in connection with the matter, an enquiry was conducted by the ASP(Dn) and during enquiry it was found that the Branch Post Master Gamiripal Branch Office, Smti Sabita Devi(opposite party No.1) had intentionally gave S.B Account number 453021 to the Complainant, when there was already a Saving Account with that number in the name of Shri Roshan Sharma, son of the opposite party No.1.
- Advancing his argument Sri N.M Goswami, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1, submitted that Ext-1 does not bear signature of the opposite party No.1 but it bears signature of one Sri A. Nath. As such opposite party No.1 is no way responsible in the matter alleged. Learned advocate Sri Goswami has given emphasis on the oral evidence of D.W.2 Md. Amjad Ali in cross-examination by opposite party No.1. He in cross-examination by the opposite party No.1 stated “There is no account in the name of the Complainant Smti Durga Das. Therefore, Complainant is in no way our customer”.
- Refuting such contention raised by Mr Goswami, Sri B.Das, learned advocate appearing for the Complainant has invited our attention to Ext-3 and written version of the opposite party No.2 and had submitted that oral evidence under no circumstances can override documentary evidence.
- Ext-3 is the reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the Complainant. To appreciate the matter under challenge, we have found the following portion of Ext-3 as most relevant-
“…. In this regard it is to intimate that a detailed inquiry in connection with the above cited case has been carried out by ASP(Dn) on 23-09-2015 and during the inquiry it revealed that the then BPM, Gamiripal BO, Smti Sabita Devi had intentionally committed the fraud i/c/w SB account no-453021. Since there was already an account no.453021 in the name of Roshan Sharma, who is the son of said Sabita Devi and the same account no. was given to Smt. Durga Das too by pasting white paper in the front page and also putting her name and photograph in that white paper. An (sic)departmental inquiry has already been initiated against the said Smti Sabita Devi on the accusation of misappropriation of Govt. money and the case is still under process and the official is under put off now”.
- Complainant at para 6 of her complaint clearly stated what have been reflected in Ext-3. Paragraph-6 is reproduced hereinbelow-
“…That on dated 28-09-2015 the opposite party No.2 informed the advocate of the complainant that they made an inquiry in connection with the above cited incident and it has been carried out by ASP(Dn) on 23-09-2015 and during the inquiry it revealed that the then BPM Gamiripal BO, Smti Sabita Devi had intentionally committed fraud i/c/w SB Account No.453021. It is also found in the inquiry that there are already an account No.
453021 in the name of Roshan Sharma, who is the son of said opposite party no.1 and the same account no was given to the complainant by pasting white paper in the front page and also putting her name and photograph in the white paper. And the opposite party No.2 enclosed departmental inquiry report with the letter”.
- The opposite party No.1 while submitting written version against aforesaid paragraph stated as follows in para 7 that-
“That the contents of the paragraph No.5 and 6 of the present petition are not known to the answering opposite party hence it is denied by the answering opposite party being false and concocted. That the said averments are matter of concerning documents and records which is required to be proved by the petitioner by producing the same in the Hon’ble Forum”.
Paragraph 5 of the complaint relates to legal notice to the opposite party No.2 issued by the advocate of the Complainant. Such denial of the opposite party on the very face of clear allegation made in the complaint is found to be evasive denial.
- In her evidence-on-affidavit at paragraph-4, Opposite party No.1 stated that the Complainant with ulterior motive and calculated design to usurp the money deposited in A/c No.453021 of Sri Roshan Sarmah fraudulently manipulated the original Passbook of Sri Roshan Sarmah by pasting white paper having her name and photograph. According to the opposite party No.1 averments made in para-4 of her affidavit are true to the best of her knowledge and belief.
- Curiously enough, the opposite party no.1 failed to state how the original Passbook of Roshan Sarmah who is none but her son reached the Complainant for making such manipulation. Further as revealed from the record, she being the Branch Officer at the relevant time, inspite of having knowledge of such fact of manipulation and forgery did neither even lodge any complaint to the Police nor forward the matter to the higher authority of Postal Department. The matter of Departmental enquiry was set into motion only on receipt of legal notice issued on behalf of the Complainant.
- Taking into view the discussion made above in its entirety, coupled with the fact of complainant being an illiterate lady, we have come to a conclusion that the Complainant deposited money with the Postal Department. As such, she is a “Consumer” coming within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the Postal Department being the custodian of such deposit, in our considered view, rendered deficient service to the Complainant.Oposite party No.1 was an employee of the Postal Department only. As such, it cannot claim exemption from any liability to compensate the Complainant Accordingly, Complainant is entitled to get Rs.70,000/- with admissible interest on the SB A/c from the date of filing complaint and Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand)only as cost and compensation.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed on contest with cost and compensation. The opposite party No.2 being the employer of opposite party No.1 is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.70,000/-(Seventy thousand) with admissible interest thereon from the date of filing complaint til realization of the amount in full and a further amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) as cost and compensation. The opposite party No.2 is directed to take action and comply with the award within 30(thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order.
Before parting with the record we would like to note here that this order wil not render any hindrance to take action if any by the Department against the opposite party No.1.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 28th day of November, 2017.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered
( A.Devee)
President (A. DEVEE)
District Consumer D.R Forum,Sonitpur President
Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (P.DAS) (SMT.S.BORA)
Member Member
