Haryana

Karnal

104/2012

Shakuntala W/o Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumita Devi, Post Office Agent - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.R.K. Arora

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.104 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.: 17.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision:20.05.2016

 

Shakuntla wife of Jasmer son of Shri Prem Singh, resident of Banso Gate, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Ms. Sumitra Devi, Post office Agent, Satnam Public School, Bansao Gate, Karnal.

2. The Superintendent, Head Post Office, opposite Suvidha, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-         Sh. R.K. Arora  Advocate for the complainant.

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                    Sh. R.K. Verma Inspector for the Opposite party no.2.

                    

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that she opened a Recurring Deposit (RD) account in post office on 15.12.2006, on the request of opposite party no.1, who was the post office agent. She used to give an amount of Rs.500/- per month to opposite party no.1 as mentioned in HDB no.0066243 and 998013. On 15.12.2011, she alongwith her husband contacted  the opposite parties and requested to make payment of RD account no.1033485 on maturity, but she was told that the account would mature in December, 2011. Thereafter, the legal notice dated 4.1.2012 was served upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Such conduct on the part of the opposite party no.1 was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on her part.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that the complaint is bad for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that RD account no. 1033485 was opened on 15.12.2007 instead of 15.12.2006 as per SB-3 available on record,  for the denomination of Rs.500/- in the name of the complainant through Sumitra Devi MPKBY agent CA no.0427528 at Karnal city post office for five years with the signature of the complainant on SB-3. The payment of the said account was due after five years on 15.12.2012 as per departmental RD rules. Only 46 installments upto September, 2011 were deposited in the said account and there was balance of Rs.23,000/-. It has been denied that the complainant reached post office city Karnal for getting payment of the amount.

3.                Opposite party no.1 did not file any separate written statement rather adopted the written statement filed by opposite party no.2. Statement to that effect was made by her counsel on 19.7.2012.

4.                Lateron, when the case was at the stage of evidence of opposite party no.1 none put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1, therefore, exparte proceeding were initiated against her, vide order dated 17.11.2014.

5.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4 have been tendered.

6.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Ms Simran Kaur Sr. Superintendent Post Offices Karnal Division and statement of accounts have been tendered.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

8.                From the copy of the statement of account produced by opposite party no.2, it is clear that the complainant had opened Recurring Deposit (RD) account no.1033485 in Karnal City post office on 15.12.2007 for denomination of Rs.500/- per month and the maturity period was five years. As per pleadings of opposite party no.2, the complainant deposited 46 installments upto September, 2011 and thereafter she did not deposit the remaining installments. In this way, the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.23000/-.

9.                As per the case of the complainant she had been making payment of Rs.500/- per month to opposite party no.1 since 15.12.2006. In order to substantiate her allegations she has produced the copies of cards Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 regarding payments deposit by her with opposite party no.1. In Ex.C2  opposite party no.1 had given in writing that the account from 15.12.2006 to 15.4.2010 was clear. Opposite party no.1 could not lead any evidence to rebut this documentary evidence and the averments made by the complainant in her affidavit, rather she opted to be proceeded exparte when the case was at the stage of her evidence. Thus, the oral as well as documentary evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Under such facts and circumstances, it stands established that the complainant had been depositing Rs.500/- per month with opposite party no.1 since 15.12.2006, though her account was opened by opposite party no.1 in Karnal city post office for the first time on 15.12.2007.

10.              The representative of opposite party no.2 submitted that opposite party no.1 was not the agent appointed by opposite party no.2, rather opposite party no.1 was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner and she was to facilitate the business of the post office and get commission for that work. He further submitted that even the original cards Ex.C2 and C3 were not issued by the post office, rather the same were also given to opposite party no.1 by the office of Deputy Commissioner. Complainant has not been able to lead any evidence to prove that opposite party no.1 was appointed as agent by opposite party no.2. Therefore, under such circumstances, the relationship of principal and agent between the opposite parties no.2 and 1 is not established and as such opposite the party no.2 cannot be held  liable for acts done by opposite party no.1.

11.              Even otherwise the complainant has not produced the pass book issued by the opposite party no.2 regarding the deposits made by her for the period of 15.12.2006 to 15.11.2007. Therefore, the opposite party no.2 cannot be held responsible in any manner for the amount deposited by the complainant with the opposite party no.1 for the said period. The opposite party no.2 is only liable to refund the amount which stands deposited in the account of complainant i.e. Rs.23000/- alongwith interest thereon as per rules and instructions issued in that regard. Regarding the payments made by the complainant for the period 15.12.2006 to 15.11.2007, only opposite party no.1 is liable.

12.              As a sequel to foregoing discussion, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.23,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest thereon as per rules and instruction issued in that regard. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.6000/-(i.e. Rs.500/- per month deposited by the complainant with the opposite party no.1 during the period of 15.12.2006 to 15.11.2007) to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposits till its realization. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.05.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member