Haryana

Karnal

CC/455/2021

Babita - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Post Master General - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Persad Munjal

09 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.455 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.08.09.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:09.08.2024

 

Babita wife of Shri Jai Parkash, resident of village Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala-133001.
2. Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Karnal.
3. Incharge Branch Post Office, Manujra, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur ..…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri R.P. Munjal, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Surinder Saini, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit with the branch post office Manjura, the detail of which is given as under:-

Sr. No.	Name of A/c Holder	Type of A/C and name	Date of opening of account	A/c no. allotted by B. P. O. Manjura	Amount outstanding payable by Post office.
1.	Babita wife of Shri Jai Parkash	Rs.50,000/- FDR with auto sweep	10.10.2016	9745601256	Rs.50,000/- plus interest as per FDR account prevailing at the time of deposit

 

The abovesaid amount was deposited by the complainant with the official Incharge of the department of the OPs posted at Branch Post Office Manjura,  who collected the above amount on their behalf being an employee/agent of their department, with the assurance that the same shall be paid with FDR interest on maturity as applicable to such accounts till the date of realization and issued a passbook in this regard which was taken into custody by the enquiry officer and receipt bearing book no.81 and receipt no.19 was issued to the complainant. The original passbook of FDR has been retained by their office through the abovesaid enquiry officer.  The Incharge of the Branch Post Office Manjura used to refund the amount on maturity to the account holders and believing him as well as the post office being Government Department, the complainant relied upon the Incharge of the said post office and deposited the abovesaid amount. Lateron, when the date of maturity came nearby and when the complainant was in need of the said money, it came to the notice of the complainant that the alleged incharge of the Branch Post Office Manjura Shri Pala Ram have committed suicide and when the new Incharge joined the said post office, on contact, he informed that the complainant that no such amount for which FDR pass book duly stamped of post office has been issued by the alleged Incharge has not been accounted for in the relevant books of Post office and denied to refund the amount deposited by the complainant. The FDR receipt bears authenticated stamp of post office and signature of the then Incharge holding the post of Incharge Sub Post Office Manjura at that time. The matter was brought into the notice of the OPs and to higher authorities and an enquiry was conducted by the Senior Officers of their office and they collected the original FDR receipt from the complainant as well as other beneficiaries/account holders some time about three years back and with the assurance that after conducting enquiry, the matter will be sort out and the amount will be refunded to the complainant at the earliest with accumulated interest as payable to such accounts.

2.             It is further averred that the matter was brought into the notice of the OPs and to higher authorities and an enquiry was conducted by the Senior Officers of their office and they collected the original FDR receipt from the complainant as well as other beneficiaries/account holders under acknowledgement and receipts under acknowledgement and receipts some time about three years back and with the assurance that after conducting enquiry, the matter will be sort out and the amount will be refunded to the complainant at the earlier with accumulated interest as payable to such account. The matter was brought into the notice of District Administration through a complaint filed with the CM Window but no fruitful action was taken in this regard by the OPs. However, an assurance was given by their department in the Committee headed by Minister concerned that the depositor will be given their amount shown in their FDR receipt/pass book. But till date no action has been taken. Whenever, complainant approached the OPs and their office for refund of the amount, only assurance was given that the complainant shall get refund of their amount with interest at the earliest possible. It is well settled law that when an agent even if without authority done acts or incurred obligation to third persons on behalf of Principal during course of ordinary business the principal is bound by those acts irrespective of the agents mistakes and prejudice cause to him by his acts. It is observed in many Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Courts judgments that misrepresentation made or frauds committed by agents/employee acting in the course of their business for the principals have the same effect on agreement made by such agents/employees as if such misrepresentation or fraud had been made or committed by the principal.

3.             It is further averred that in similar cases, their office while complying the awards passed by the Hon’ble Commission has released payments of the original amount deposited, with interest and litigation charges and mental agony suffered by the consumers, in favour of the consumers in complaints no.56 of 2019, 57 of 2019 and 58 of 2019 decided on 12.02.2020 holding such accounts with the Manujra Sub Post Office, vide your office memo no.F4/2/17-18/Anshu and others. It is pertinent to mention here that an appeal preferred before the State Consumer commission has also been dismissed on 29.06.2021. OPs have prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other without any reasonable cause and complainant is suffering loss of interest due to non release of above payments and he is suffering mental agony due to illegal act and conduct of OPs. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

4.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true facts. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has account no. 9745601256 and has deposited FD for Rs.50,000/- on 10.10.2016 in the name of Babita. As per Government record account no.9745601256 is invalid and fake account number. The said account numbers does not exist in Government record. As per Government record account no.9745601256 was opened in the name of Shri Rajesh son of Shri Uswe village Hathlana. There is time deposit accounts scheme exists which means only one deposit in one account. The alleged passbook was prepared and issued by Shri Pala Ram, the then GDSBPM at this own without any intimation to the account office, Nissing. Shri Pala Ram, the then GDSBPM had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts at his own without any intimation to the Account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office. It is further pleaded that as per the instruction issued by the department of posts in cover page of saving bank at serial no.2, it is clearly mentioned that it is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and the post office is legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. Further, the branch post master is not authorized to issue any kind of saving scheme passbooks. Saving scheme passbooks for new accounts are issued by the account office of the branch office. Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts. It is further pleaded that Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts without any intimation to account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office.  It is further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted by the inspector, Post Offices (East) Sub Division, Karnal and as per enquiry verification of all accounts (1280) for the period w.e.f.07.11.1997 to 16.01.2018 have done at branch office Manjura by the committee and no cause of fraud came out but in some accounts the aforesaid Shri Pala Ram himself prepared and issued fake passbooks. These passbooks has mentioned in the claim application have no details or records in the Branch Post Office Manjura (Nissing). It is further pleaded that Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts without any intimation to account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office. Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook without any intimation to account office i.e. Nissing Sub Post Office. Moreover, no complaint regarding non-depositing of the amount in the government account has received from any depositor during the lifetime of Shri Pala Ram. However, branch post master is not authorized to issue any kind of saving scheme passbooks. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, original receipts and copy of passbook Ex.C1, copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipts and acknowledgement Ex.C2, copy of complaint to OSD to CM Ex.C3, copy of complaint to CM Window Ex.C4, copy of complaint to Prime Minister Ex.C5, copy of complaint to G.M. Post Office Ex.C6, copy of FIR Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 31.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Megh Raj Mittal, Senior Superintendent Ex.OPW1/A and closed the evidence on 27.02.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 10.10.2016, complainant deposited Rs.50,000/-  in her name, in the  shape of FDR with the OP no.3. The said amount had deposited with Pala Ram being Branch Post Master. Complainant was in need of said money, then she came to know that the then GDSBPM, has committed suicide. When the new Incharge joined the said post office, she informed that no such amount for which FDR, passbooks have been issued by the said Incharge, have been accounted in the Post Office and denied to refund the deposited amount. Said Pala Ram had misappropriated the amounts of other depositors of village Manjura and made false entries in their pass books and the post office is accountable for his mis-conduct and they are entitled to recover the amount from the post office.

10.           Learned counsel for OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version has vehemently argued that it is wrong that the complainant had deposited FD for Rs.50,000/- on 10.10.2016  in her name. As per government record, account no.9745601256 is invalid and fake account number. Any account of this number does not exist in Government record. Pala Ram, the then GDSBPM had made forged entries in fixed deposit passbook accounts at his own without any intimation to the Account Office. As per the instruction issued by the department of posts, it is the duty of the depositor to confirm balance shown in the passbook from the concerned post office and the post office is only legally liable to pay the amount actually available in its record. The enquiry was conducted by the inspector, Post Offices (East) Sub Division, Karnal and as per enquiry on verification of all accounts (1280) for the period w.e.f.07.11.1997 to 16.01.2018 have done at branch office Manjura by the committee and no cause of fraud came out but in some accounts, the aforesaid Shri Pala Ram himself prepared and issued fake passbooks and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Admittedly, the then Incharge Branch Post Office Manjura, namely Pala Ram, who has issued the alleged FDR, has committed suicide.

12.           Now, the first question arises for consideration is that whether the complainant has deposited the claimed amount with Pala Ram the then Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) in the branch Post office Manjura or not? 

13.           To prove her case, complainant has placed on file receipt Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.50,000/-  deposited with OPs’ branch at post office Manjura. The said amounts had been deposited by her with the official Incharge of the Department posted at Branch Post Office, Manjura, Pala Ram had received the said amount being an employee, agent of the OPs with the assurance that the same would be paid with interest on its maturity. The passbook Mark-A, which has been placed on file by the OPs by court order dated 23.01.2023 had been issued by the said Incharge and the same has borne authenticated stamp of the post office and signature of the Incharge, Sub Post Office Manjura. It is not a case of the OPs that the then Pala Ram was not its employee and he has not received the money from the depositors. When the deposited amounts had not been refunded to the depositors then they filed the complaint to OSD to CM Ex.C3, complaint to CM Window Ex.C4, complaint to  Prime Minister Ex.C5, complaint to G.M. Post Office Ex.C6. From the abovesaid documents, it has been proved on the file that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- till 10.10.2016 and same has not been refunded. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount.

14.           OPs have taken a plea that account no. 9745601256 does not exist. The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs but OPs have miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. OPs have only tendered affidavit of Megh Raj Mittal, Senior Superintendent Ex.OPW1/A and no other documentary evidence have been placed on file to prove its version. It is not proved on the file that alleged accounts do not exist. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has no force.

15.           The next question arises for consideration is that whether the concerned department i.e. OPs are liable for the wrong acts of its employees or not?

16.           Admittedly, Pala Ram (since deceased) was employee of the Postal Department, thus the Post Office is accountable for his mis-conduct and the complainant is entitled for the deposited amount alongwith interest from the post office and its vicarious liability of the OPs. In this regard, we relied upon the case titled as Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Versus Bagwan Vishnoo Mahadeshwar 1(2004) CPJ 193 wherein it is held that deposits were regularly paid to the Agent, under Mini Deposit Scheme. Entries were made in the pass book evidencing payment. Agent Committed fraud and did not deposit the amount in bank. Under those circumstances, it was held by Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai that the bank was accountable for the misconduct of the Agent. Further, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Risheendran Nambiar and others in Revision Petition no.2153 of 2010, decided on 14.03.2018 wherein it is held that the insurer shall be responsible for all the acts and omissions of its agents including violation of code of conduct specified under clause (h) of sub section (3) and liable to a penalty which may extend to one crore rupees.  Further, in case titled as Post Office & Anr. Vs. Akhilesh Grover in Revision Petition no.1278 of 2016, decided on 06.10.2017 wherein it is held that not delivering the speed post article to its addressee clearly constituted a willful act of deficiency in service of their part. Further, in case titled as State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Kanchanmala Vijyasing Shirke and Ors in Civil Appeal no.7564 of 1995 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil ) no.3298 of 1993) date of decision 22.08.1995 of wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that vicarious liability Accident-Driver under the influence of liquor authorized a clerk to drive-Jeep belonging is state Government the scooter resulting in a fatal accident-Held, that it is a negligent act in the course of employment-Further held that the State cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim. Further, in case titled as Rigid Global (India) Versus Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and others 2008(2) CPJ 365 wherein Hon’ble State Commission Rajasthan held that misrepresentation or fraud-A principal is liable for agents’ fraud acting within scope of his authority, whether fraud is committed for benefit of principal or for benefit of agent.

17.           Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the complaint, we are of the considered view that OPs are liable for the wrong acts committed by its employees and complainant is entitled for the claim amount.  Thus, act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.            

18.           As discussed above that Pala Ram was the employee of OPs hence the OPs are liable for wrong act committed by their employee. However, OPs are at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the assets of the concerned defaulting employee i.e. Pala Ram (since deceased) or his LRs as per law.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only)  to the complainant with interest @ as prescribed in the FDRs from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 08.09.2021 till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 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:09.08.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                               (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                                  Member