Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/731/2015

Post Master - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sohan Lal Parnami S/O Parmanand Parnami - Opp.Party(s)

Banwri Lal Sharma

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 731 /2015

 

Dakpal, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Sohan Lal Parnami s/o Parmanand Parnami r/o 20/17/A Dhruv Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 04.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Pankaj Thakuria counsel for the appellants

Mr.Ravindra Jain counsel for the respondent

 

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 11.5.2015 whereby award has been passed in favour of the respondent.

 

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the court below is faulty as the agents were employed by the State Government and as per the circular of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs dated 1.11.1993 it has been made clear that in the event of any misappropriation by any agent appointed by any appointing authority by the State Government then the State Government will bear the loss. Hence, the appellants are not liable for any recovery.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that privity of contract of the respondent was with the appellant and agent was entitled to receive the money on behalf of the appellant and when Smt. Sangeeta Bakliwal has received the money on behalf of the appellant and had not deposited the money in the account of the respondent , it is the fault and deficiency of

3

 

service of the appellant and the court below has rightly held so.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The court below has rightly held that money was deposited in the account of the respondent which was handed over to Mrs.Sangeeta Bakliwal. Even a pass book has been issued in favour of the respondent having entries of all the payments. Hence, it cannot be disputed that money was deposited by the respondent and he is entitled for the re-payment of the same. The appellant cannot escape from his liability on the ground that Mrs.Sangeeta Bakliwal was the person appointed by the State Government and circular dated 1.11.1993 is of no assistance to the appellant as Mrs.Sangeeta Bakliwal was the agent of the appellant and she received the money on behalf of the appellant and pass book has been issued to the respondent showing payment of the money. Hence, the respondent is rightly held entitled for re-payment of the money and it was deficiency of service on part of the appellant. If there is any understanding between the State Government and Government of India regarding liability, it can be settled between them and the consumer was having privity of contract

4

 

with the appellant only. Hence, the appellant cannot escape from his liability.

 

In view of the above there is no perversity in the order of the court below and the court below has rightly held that respondent is entitled for the money deposited with the appellant with due interest and no interference is needed. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm