District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Dakshin Dinajpur, W. Bengal

(Old Sub-Jail Municipal Market Complex, 2^nd Floor, Balurghat Dakshin Dinajpur Pin - 733101)

Telefax: (03522)-270013

Present          

Sri N. K. Sarker                                  - President

Miss. Swapna Saha                            - Member

Sri J. Bhattacharya                             - Member

                                                                                                                        Contd…P/2

                                                                                                            Contd…P/3

                                                VS.      (Opposite Parties as below are common to all the abovementioned complaint cases)

                                                                                                            Contd…P/4

For complainants …………    - Ld. Adv. Sri Bidyut Kr. Roy  & Sri Anish Das,

                                                              (for all above complaint cases)

For OPs ………………           - Ld. Adv. Sri Anup Kr. Ray, 

                                                              (for all above complaint cases)

Date of Disposal                                 : 27.02.2013

Judgment & Order  dt. 27.02.2013

1.          The above mentioned complaint cases u/s 12 C.P. Act, 1986, brought by respective complainants against the common OPs are based on exactly similar facts involving similar question of law and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgement. 

2.         The complainants of the above cases like others being attracted by the terms,  conditions & prospects of a life insurance policy under the caption “Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) sponsored by the Indian Postal Deptt. subscribed  policies and transactions were being made through the Branch Post Office at Ushaharanhat. At the material time, the Branch Postmaster was one Ashit Ghosh son of late Amal Ghosh, resident of village – Daharul, PO- Majihar, PS – Kushmundi Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur.

3.         Brief particulars of the policies purchased by the complainant of the respective cases will be reflected later on at the appropriate stage of discussion.

4.         The policyholders used to deposit premium in each month in the hand of the then Branch Postmaster named above in lieu of receipts given by said branch postmaster which each of them accepted in good faith, as genuine.

5.         All on a sudden said Branch Postmaster committed suicide on 19.5.2011 and thenceforth, so many discrepancies in the matter of accounting of money including the money received from the holders of RPLI policies as premium paid by them and misappropriation of public money by said Branch postmaster of said branch post office came to light.

                                                                                                                        Contd…P/5

                        Because of tremendous public commotion the higher authority of the postal department shifted the Branch Post Office from Ushaharanhat to Kushmandi wherefrom function of the said sub-post office continued. Thereafter the postal authority directed the policyholders and depositors to submit their Passbooks , other documents and relevant papers to the Kushmandi Sub-Post office for settlement of respective claim with a declaration that the payable amount would be disbursed within a period of 15 days from making deposit of relevant documents.

                        But even after lapse of more than 6 months and despite repeated persuasions the postal authority not only failed and neglected to settle the claim and disburse the payable amount but also did not allow the policyholders to deposit remaining monthly instalment of premium.

6.         Because of motivated and negligent act of the OPs in the matter of payment of admissible amount against the policy and also in the matter of non-acceptance of remaining instalment of premium the complainant had been subjected to  irreparable loss and injury and also enormous mental pain and agony.

                  Hence the case for reliefs prayed therein.

7.         Having denied all the material allegations and contentions of the complainants and challenging the maintainability of the respective cases on the ground of want of cause of action, non-joinder of parties, non-service of notice u/s 80 CPC and that the complainants are not consumers, the OPs have contested the case by filing composite written versions in respective case only admitting inter alia that the complainants are policyholders under the RPLI scheme of post office in respect of the policies duly issued to them.

8.         It is further admitted that Ashit Ghosh was the Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster of Ushaharanhat Branch Post Office since 2006 and he committed suicide on 19.5.2011. During past-work verification alleged defalcation of public money in respect of SB Account and RPLI policies by late Ashit Ghosh came to the knowledge the authorities.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/6

9.         It is further admitted that in view of customers’ agitations because of alleged embezzlement of their money, the Br. Post Office could not function at its original location and therefore, had to be shifted to Kushmandi sub Post Office for restoration of normal situation. It is further admitted that in order to ascertain the quantum of alleged defalcation amount, the acting Branch Post Master was entrusted to collect the Passbooks, RPLI – 2 receipts from account / policyholders for verification of authenticities of entries made therein as well as corresponding entries in the Govt. Account books (ledger). Unless such verification was completed the process of refund of payable amount could not be started. There is no intentional latches on the part of OPs in this regard.

10.       It is also asserted that several times the OPs requested the complainants to submit their claim supported by RPLI-2 receipts but they did not do so promptly. The department is ready to pay the actual admissible amount on fulfillment of terms and conditions applicable to rural postal life insurance rules. In doing so, it is to be ascertained first whether the claimant deposited any amount at Ushaharanhat Br. post office or not and whether it was misappropriated thereafter by any employee of the post office. Then and then only the liability of the postal department arises. If the postmaster had received any amount by provoking or misleading any person by virtue of his post then the liability will be of that employee alone and it will be not the liability of the post office

                  Upon such pleadings prayer has been made to dismiss the respective cases.

11.       In view of the pleadings of the parties this Forum is called upon to decide whether –

1. the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
2. there is any cause of action for filing the case?
3. the case suffers from defect of parties?
4. the case is liable to fail for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC?
5. the complainants are consumers?

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/7

6. the money of the complainants has been misappropriated by any employee of the postal authority? If so, whether such misappropriation was committed by the employee in his personal capacity or in his official capacity.

7. the postal authority is vicariously liable for the act of such an employee?
8. the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

12.       For the sake of convenience of discussion let us append below a statement in brief containing name of the complainants, respective Case No. and Policy No. Opening date of Policy, No. of premia deposited, No. of receipts received by them, rate of premium and the Term of policy.

13.       Point No. 11 (a) – (e) : At the very outset of his argument, Ld. Adv. for the OPs with his usual vigor submitted that the present case must fail because of want of

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/8

cause of action.  Elaborating the argument he pointed out that neither in the petition of complaint nor by producing any other document it has been pleaded or shown how and when the cause of action arose. Referring to different parts of the pleading he submitted that the OPs were always and are still ready and willing to disburse the payable amount to its customers provided the payable amount is ascertained on proper scrutiny and evaluation of the official documents vis-a-vis the documents submitted by the customers. In doing so some time must be given to the OPs which is quite reasonable. Since, there is no refusal from the side of OPs in making such payment no cause of action arose.

14.       In addition to his earlier submission Ld. Adv. for the complainants in reply further added that the claimant cannot wait for an indefinite period to get their legitimate claim addressed. Though the OPs verbally assured to make payment yet did not specify even tentatively the time by which such payment would be made. He further added that cause of action is nothing but accumulation of genuine grievances of a customer and in this case it started from the point of time when the claimants were not allowed to deposit their balance monthly premium soon after the death of the Branch Post Master on 19.5.2011. The claimants waited till 2012 but having no other alternative had to resort to such litigation. All such facts taken together gave rise to cause of action for filing of the case.

15.       True it is that the cause of action may arise from a single fact or it may be a bundle of facts. In this case we find that the complainants after purchasing the policies went on depositing premium but according to pleading they were prevented from making such payment of premium since the death of branch Postmaster on 19.5.2011. Thereafter, they lost their confidence in the postal authority and wished to withdraw themselves from continuing the policy and approached the postal authority for refund of policy amount admissible to them taking into account the deposits made by them in lieu of receipts issued by the then Branch Postmaster. According to the pleadings and materials on record, despite repeated requests and lapse of sufficient time from 19.5.2011 almost till the mid of 2012 their grievances were not addressed nor any specific  assurance  was  given  as  to  the  time  when  their  grievances  could  be

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/9

addressed. Therefore, we find that the complainants have waited for a reasonably considerable period of time but they cannot wait for indefinite period for addressing their grievances. The circumstances that prevented them from making payment of further premium, waiting for a long period for grievances being addressed despite repeated requests , all taken together, in our humble estimation, constituted the cause of action for filing the case specially when we find that the complainants submitted their passbooks to the postal authority. So, delay in addressing the grievances of the complainants cannot be exclusively attributed to them. Having regard to the entire circumstances narrated above we find that the complainants were kept waiting for an unspecified time and this act on the part of  the OPs amounts to implied denial to address the grievances to the complainants which according to us is the cause of action. Therefore, we hold that there exists cause of action for filing the cases.

16.       On scrutiny of the cause title and pleadings of the parties we find that all the necessary parties have been impleaded and so the cases do not suffer from defect of parties.

17.       It goes undisputed that in all proceedings before the Consumer Forum endeavour shall be made by the parties and their counsels to avoid the use of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Provided that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may be applied which have been referred to in the Act or in the rules made there under. (Rule 26, Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005). This provision rules out the necessity of service of notice u/s 80 of CPC while launching a proceeding under the CP Act.

18.       Admittedly all the complainants have purchased policy under RPLI under the scheme sponsored by the Indian Postal Department and paid premium against receipts (some of which are admittedly genuine and some are disputed as per submission made during hearing of the cases). Admittedly, the postal authority have taken up the cases of the complainants which are under process in the matter of payment of due amount to each of them. In view of such facts, there is no hesitation to hold that each of the complainant is a consumer within the provisions of CP Act.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/10

                        In view of the above findings in respect of the points under consideration we hold that the present cases are maintainable in its present form and prayer.

19.       Point No. 11 (f) – (h) :

                        At the very outset of his argument Ld. Adv. for the complainant submitted that –

1. being attracted by the scheme of RPLI sponsored by the postal authority, each of the complainants became a policy holder and went on depositing monthly premium against receipts issued by the branch postmaster named above which the complainants used to accept as genuine in good faith.
2. the branch- postmaster also used to make entry of such deposits forthwith in the passbook and sometimes he used to make such entries at a time in respect of several deposits;
3. the complainants who are almost illiterate & ignorant village people had no reason and occasion to doubt the genuineness of the receipts given to them and entries made in their passbooks by the branch- postmaster;
4. their faith in the Br.- postmaster  and the documents and entries made by him shattered into pieces only when the fraud practised by the Br.- postmaster  came to light and when the Br.- postmaster  committed suicide without any acceptable reason other than his fear of being caught as a fraud practitioner.
5. the complainants having duly paid the premia cannot be deprived of their admissible dues, whatsoever,
6. the Br.- postmaster  having committed such fraud in course of his employment under postal department, the postal authority cannot shake off their responsibilities in the matter of making payment to the consumers, no matter the involved amount has been misappropriated or otherwise fraudulently dealt with by his employee in course of his employment.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/11

7. there is no evidence that the complainants and the branch- postmaster  mutually colluded and so, the OP postal authority cannot absolve themselves from the liability of the misdeed committed by its employee, in course of his employment. In support of his argument. He placed reliance upon decisions reported in (i) 2007 (1) CPR 319 (NC), (ii) 2010 (1) CPR 562 (iii) 2011 (1)CPR 95 (NC).

20.       In reply, Ld. Adv. for the OPs submitted that –

1. the aforesaid branch-postmaster  was not a regular employee of postal department but had been working as such on contractual basis under certain conditions and so, he cannot be said to be an employee of the postal department.
2. even if he was an employee of the postal department he committed the alleged fraud not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity. So, the postal authority cannot be held responsible in any way.
3. mere entry in the passbook as regards the payment of premia cannot conclusively prove the genuine payment of premium unless such entry is corroborated by the corresponding entries in the accounts book (ledger) maintained in the office of the postal department. Mere production of certain receipts, genuineness of which is yet to be ascertained, cannot by itself support the claim of the complainants.
4. there is a particular mode of payment of premium in cash. For such payment each insured is supplied by the department with a premium receipt book in which entries relating to payment of each premium shall be made (vide rule 31 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules, 2011).
5. In this particular case, except a few, all the receipts prime facie appear not from the premium receipt book issued by the department.

21.       Ld. Adv. for the OPs discarded the claim of the complainants in view of the fact that apparently the receipts produced by the complainants contain only few number of genuine receipts which do not cover a minimum period of 36 months. Unless premia are paid at least for 36 months, the insured is not entitled even to the

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/12

surrender value of the policy in terms of sub-rule (37) of rule 5 of P.L.I. Rules, 2011. In support of his entire argument, Ld. Adv. for the OPs placed his reliance upon the unreported decisions of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in SC Case No. 949 of 92 followed by appeal being No. 89 of 1993 of the Hon’ble National Commission  followed by order dt. 12.7.1995 dismissing the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with a liberty to file suit, provided the law permits. Such a case being No. TS 67/97  was filed by the concerned party(liberty holder from Hon’ble Supreme Court) in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Balurghat which was decreed. Appeal being No. 28 of 2005 preferred against said judgement and decree was allowed by the Addl. Dist. Judge – I, Dakshin Dinajpur

22.       Therefore, the gist of the contentions of the complainants is that each of them paid monthly premia amicably to the Branch Postmaster in cash and obtained receipts given by him which each of them accepted as genuine and accordingly, they are at least entitled to the refund of total premium amount together with interest, no matter the postmaster defalcated the amount, specially because he did so in course of his employment.

23.       Gist of the defence case is that the named branch postmaster was not a regular employee of Postal Department, and even if, he was so and even if, he has defalcated the premium amount of the complainants, he did so in his personal capacity and OP postal department is not responsible for the misdeed of that branch postmaster. However, the postal authority is ready and willing to refund the complainants the premium amount paid by them, if such payment is found genuine on proper verification of official records.

24.       In view of the contentions of the contending parties duly developed during arguments, we are first of all called upon to decide –

1. Whether the said branch postmaster was an employee of the postal department?

(ii) Whether he misappropriated the said amount ?

(iii) If so, whether he did so in his personal capacity or in course of his employment?

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/13

25.       The method of recruitment and proforma order of appointment of E.D. branch- postmaster  have been embodied in Rule 4 of Service Rules for  postal E.D. staff compiled by Muthuswamy & Brinda, 7^th Edition, 1999 from page 75 to 77. Going through those pages, we find that E.D. branch- postmaster  is appointed on contractual basis terminable by either the employer or the employee and the conduct and service of the employee is governed by the Posts & Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time. Such candidate, before appointment, should satisfy the department as regards his income & ownership of property, residence and he is also liable to furnish security as specified therein.

26.       Since admittedly, said Ashit Ghosh was appointed as E.D. branch postmaster, assumably he had all such essential eligibilities for such appointment and was appointed by an appropriate order of appointment by appropriate appointing authority. So, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that he was in contractual appointment in the OP postal department and undisputedly, his employment continued at the material point of time. It cannot also lost sight of the fact that the order of appointment clearly speaks that his service shall also be governed by the Posts & Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (conduct & service) Rules, 1964. So, it speaks of no dispute that he was at least an agent of the postal department and acted as such during subsistence of his contractual employment at the material point of time. The principle “vicarious liability” speaks that acts of an agent also binds his master in course of his duty as such.

27.       We find that the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case reported in 2007 (1) CPR 319 (NC) held “where official of a bank misappropriated the money deposited by a customer and there was no evidence that customer depositor and official colluded for misappropriation, bank was liable to pay the amount of deposit”. In said judgement, Hon’ble National Commission  with respect to a decision in State Bank of India (Successor to the Imperial Bank of India) vs. Smt. Shyama Devi, reported in AIR 1978 SC 1263, elaborately discussed the circumstances when act of the servant / agent will bind the master. True it is , in that

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/14

case the offender confessed his guilt and was convicted u/s 409 IPC. But in the present case, the branch- postmaster  committed suicide before he could be proceeded against under the appropriate provisions of IPC. In  the unreported case noted above, relied upon by the OPs, the offender admitted his guilt and embezzlement of money in his personal capacity by leaving a suicidal note before he committed suicide. In that case, the Secretary of the school used to deposit Provident Fund amount of the teachers and employees of the school and also sometimes had withdrawn some amount from the account. All those transactions were based on factitious documents and no receipt of deposit showing rise of the balance as per the passbook could be produced. So, possibility of collusion between the Secretary and the Postmaster could not be ruled out because in such case neither the secretary nor the postal employee would have any occasion to suffer loss. Instead, such collusion brought them benefit. But teachers and employees whose money was supposed to be deposited into Provident Fund account had to suffer.

                        On the other hand, in the present case, the  possibility of such collusion between the complainants and Branch- Postmaster is unimaginable because in that case complainants would be the sufferers. Admittedly, all the policies continued for a very long period on the stated payment of premium. It is also unthinkable that the complainants colluded with the branch- postmaster  long time back and continued the policies on acceptance of fictitious receipts with an ultimate object of making a demand out of such receipts in future. Because in such event, they were not out of risk of being caught for making demand on such fictitious receipts. There was also no reason on the part of the branch- postmaster  to collude with the complainants to give them benefit at the cost of his own life. So, in the present case the possibility of any sort of collusion between the complainants and the branch- postmaster  is inconsistent with normal human conduct and hence, ruled out. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions in the cases (unreported) decided by the State Commission , then by National Commission  and ultimate dismissal of SLP by Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the OPs is not similar to that of the present case. So the decisions relied upon by the OPs are of no avail to them.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/15

28.       Title Appeal No. 28/05 filed against TS 67/97 was allowed, as it appears, not on merit but on some technical legal points, such as (a) barred by res-judicata (b) barred u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act (c) non-payment of required court fees as per Court Fees Act and (d) the fraud was held to have been committed in personal capacity (as per suicidal note) and not in official capacity. Except the point (d) all other points are not to extinguish the rights but to bar the remedy. Additional finding was simply that the principle of vicarious liability was not attracted. Therefore, in our humble estimation, the unreported decisions relied upon by the OPs are not to help them.

29.       On scrutiny of the Passbooks and the receipts as on record, we find that the entries in the Passbook and the receipts bear signature of the receiving person with undisputed official seal. It is not the defence that the official seal appearing on the Passbooks and receipts was parted with by the concerned branch- postmaster  and it is the  specific case of the complainants that they used to get the receipts  from the said branch- postmaster. In view of such undisputed position, there is no other alternative but to hold that the concerned branch- postmaster  issued the receipts and used to hand over the Passbooks & receipts to the complainants after affixing official seal on those. Therefore, he did all such acts in his official capacity. This observation is fortified from the fact that the original policy and the first premium receipts given to the persons  insured are not fictitious. Thereafter, as per rules and conventions, subsequent premia were paid in cash direct to the branch- postmaster  for which he used to handover receipts. The claimants were never informed that their premia had not been incorporated in the ledger and they were never asked not to give any premium amount to the said Branch-postmaster. So, all such factual aspects lead to believe that there was no reason for the complainants to become apprehensive and suspicious that payments of their premium are not being incorporated in the relevant ledger or that they were being supplied with fake receipts. Therefore, having regard to all such facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that said Branch-postmaster transacted with the complainants not in his personal capacity but in his official capacity and in course of his employment. So, his such acts must bind his master, that is, the OP Postal Department. Accordingly, the OPs are vicariously liable.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/16

                        The RPLI policies taken out by the complainants are pursuant to a contract between the postal authority and policyholders. The complainants being attracted by the scheme of the policy took out the same for their future benefits and with a desire to continue the policies used to make payment of premium for a long period. Only after committing suicide by the Branch postmaster in a suspicious circumstance and receipt of news of misappropriation of public money in the said Branch post office they were compelled  to  stop making further payment of premium as there was no express intimation to the holders as to where, when and to whom they will make payment of further premium. This fact adds to the deficient service of the postal authority extendable to the policyholders.

30.       True it is, that the Passbook lies with the customer. So possibilities of its being tampered with cannot be ruled out. It is also true that as per rules every deposit in the Post Office must be entered in the ledger book which is the best evidence as to the correctness of balance. But this is expected in a normal situation when concerned official honestly and effectively performs his duty. But if he acts with malafide intention to defraud the customers as well as his employer, he will never act as per rules and expectedly will not make any entry in the ledger or will make such entry which will be anomalous that will not give correct picture. The customers do not have any access to the ledger. It is the higher authority  which is responsible to see that the official works are done as per rules and ledger is maintained correctly. If the ledger relating to the complainants does not depict correct picture, it must be due to wanton & deliberate act of omission or commission on the part of the delinquent employee and also due to latches and negligence on the part of  the supervising authority, for which the customers cannot be made to suffer. In such a peculiar circumstance, the claim of the complainants cannot be thrown away only because there is no corresponding ledger entry. Therefore, the observation in some decided cases referred to above to the effect that the balance at credit must be supported by ledger entry may not be true in all cases, specially in the facts and circumstances of the present cases .

                        In case of detection of any incidence of defalcation of public money by a Govt. employee, it is the usual practice that the appropriate departmental

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/17

            authority would be more vigilant to prevent recurrence of such an incident  and take appropriate steps in the matter. But it is unfortunate to note that identical incidence of defalcation of public money came to light in the same department in Balurghat Post Office of this district in the unreported case relied upon by the OPs (referred to above). The person serving in that department after misappropriating Govt. money committed suicide apprehending being caught for such offence leaving a suicidal note admitting his guilt. From that incident the departmental authority specially of this district appears to have not learnt any lesson otherwise same type of incident could not occur within a few years from occurrence of the earlier incidence in another post office of another sub-division of this district which is subject matter of the present case. It is our observation that the authorities negligent in the matter of dealing with public money should not be allowed to escape from its liability towards the public whose money was virtually allowed to be defalcated because of such negligence otherwise the very object of administration of justice would be shattered into pieces.  

31.       It is also true that several receipts showing payment of premium are coming from the respective complainants. So, possibility of their being fictitious or manufactured cannot be ruled out. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the Ops with reference to Rule 31 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules, 2011, as quoted below

            “ 31. An insured person who adopts the mode of paying premium in cash as a regular measure will be supplied by the Department with a premium receipt book in which entries relating to payment of each premium shall be made. The Postmaster receiving the monthly premiums will grant a receipt for the amount in this book. When the Book is filled up and has no further space for entries, it should be forwarded to the Postmaster General/ Head of Division / Postmaster of Head Post Office including G.P.O. who after verifying the entries will arrange to issue a new Book in which it will be noted, under his signature, the month up to which premia have been paid”

 submitted that most of the receipts filed by the complainants do not correspond to the

receipts supplied by the postal authority to the policyholders for making payment of

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/18

 premia in cash. In this back ground, question arises as to whether the insured complainants were really supplied with such premium receipts books by the postal authority. The burden of proof lies upon the OPs. But there is neither any pleading nor

any proof that the insured were really supplied with such premium receipt books. In such situation the insured complainants had to remain contended with the receipts given to them by said Branch Postmaster on receipt of premium amount. Therefore, without proof of supply of premium receipt books to the complainants, mere making a reference to Rule 31 becomes meaningless.

32.       In such circumstance, how the genuineness of the receipts submitted by the complainants in support of their payment of premium can be ascertained? Acceptable answers appear to be that the handwriting in those receipts may be compared with the admitted handwriting of the concerned Branch postmaster  to ascertain how many of those receipts are in the handwriting of that Branch  postmaster. The number of receipts bearing proved handwriting of the Branch  postmaster  must be accepted to be genuine receipts for payment of premium, be it entered in the ledger or not.

33.       In addition to, earlier submission, Ld. Adv. for the OPs with reference to Sub-rule (37) of Rule 5 of the Post Office Life Insurance Rules, 2011 submitted that an insured is not entitled to even the surrender value of the policy unless  he has paid at least 36 premia and policy has completed minimum 36 months’ duration. He has further added that prima facie it appears that genuine receipts are far below 36 in number.

34.       We have already held that each of the complainants will be entitled to the amount paid by him as supported by the receipts found to be in the handwriting of the said Branch postmaster. The chart  depicted in the earlier part of the judgement prima-facie show that the number of instalments for which each of the complainants has paid premium was more than 36, provided they are genuine. Respective policy also continued for more than 36 months.

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/19

35.       Be that as it may, our concrete conclusion is that each of the complainants will be entitled to the amount paid by him duly supported by the receipts produced by them  provided  that the receipts are found to be in the handwriting of the said Branch postmaster  as per examination by handwriting expert on matter such deposits have been entered in the ledger or not.

36.       Each of them will also be entitled to compensation for the harassment he suffered for which he was not at all responsible.

                        Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the petitions of complaint u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986 filed by the complainants named hereinabove are allowed on contest with cost.

The OPs are directed to collect the Passbooks and the receipts showing payment of premium from each of the claimant on proper acknowledgements after supplying them photo copies thereof at the cost of the complainants within 15 days from the date of this order.

Thereafter, the OPs will arrange for examination of those documents by competent Govt. Handwriting Expert to ascertain how many of those receipts are in the handwriting of the said Branch  postmaster  involved in this matter. The OPs will supply the examiner with admitted handwriting of the said Branch postmaster duly certified by the higher authority of the department in the presence or knowledge of each of the complainants.

Such examination of the documents must be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of the documents by the handwriting expert. Cost of such examination will be borne by the OPs.

On receipts of the report of Handwriting Expert, the OPs will arrange to make payment to the complainants by A/c Payee cheques through this Forum the admissible amount in terms of the observations and findings made

                                                                                                                  Contd…P/20

hereinabove, together with interest thereof @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization subject to the provisions of Sub rule (37) of Rule 5 of the Post Office Life Insurance Rule, 2011 within a month from the date of receipt of such report.

the OPs will also pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand) only to each of the complainants out of which each of them will deposit Rs.3,000/- in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund” (A/c No. 0093000100310261) with P.N.B. Balurghat Branch within 15 days from the date of receipt of the payment of compensation from the OPs.

Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.

            Dictated & corrected

            ………Sd/-……….                                                     

            (N. K. Sarker)                                                            

                President                                                                

            We concur,

            …… Sd/-..……                                               ……… Sd/-.……..

             (S. Saha)                                                        (J. Bhattacharya)

            Member                                                                       Member

1. Date when free copy was issued                         ……………………
2. Date of application for certified copy       ……………………
3. Date when copy was made ready            ……………………
4. Date of delivery                                        ……………………

FREE COPY [Reg. 18(6)]

1. Mode of dispatch                                ……………………
2. Date of dispatch                                  ……………………

-x-