Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/20/2014

Mulavagili Syamala W/o. M.Venkata Raju - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.Reddeppa Reddy

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                    Filing Date:-07-04-2014                                                                                                           Order Date:- 10-07-2015.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: - SRI.M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT.

                                              SMT.T.ANITHA, MEMBER

       FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN        

                                                          

C.C.No.20/2014

Between

Smt. Syamala, W/o. M.Venkata Raju,

Hindu, aged about 30 years, House-Wife,

Resident of V.C. Vaddipalle Village,

K.Kothapeta Post, Pulicherla Mandal,

Chittoor District, now residing at Mysore

for livelihood.                                                                                        …. complainant

 

And

 i)  The Chief Postmaster – General,

     Department of Posts, A.P.Circle,

     Hyderabad – 500 001, A.P.

 

ii)  The Postmaster – General,

     Department of Posts,

     Kurnool Region, Kurnool,

     Andhrapradesh.

 

iii) The Superintendent of Post offices,

      O/o. Suptd. of post Offices,

      Department Of Posts, India,

      Tirupati Division, Tirupati-1,

      Chittoor District.

 

iv) The Sub Post Master, O/o. Sub Post Office,

      Damalacheruvu Village, Post and Mandal,

      Chittoor District.

                                                                                                     …. Opposite parties

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22.06.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. K.Venkatesulu Reddy and Sri. D. Reddeppa Reddy, counsel for the complainant, Sri.  Ajay Kumar, counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 3and opposite party no.2&4 remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           This complaint is filed under Section 12 - of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties 1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the deduction i.e. June 2009, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony and to pay costs of the litigation and pass such other orders as the Honorable Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

           2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant  approached the 4^th opposite party post office of Damalcheruvu branch and opened RD account through the agent one Smt.S.Visala through account bearing no. 12191 and paid Rs.4,000/- every month and totally she paid 44 months in total and total of Rs. 1,76,000/- was lying in her account, and she approached the 4^th opposite party in the month of June 2009, in order to withdraw the amount in her RD account at that time one Purushotham Chowdary who is a postmaster of the 4^th opposite party filled an application for the withdrawal of 1,76,000/- and then he torned the original RD account pass book and then surprisingly he stated that if the amount was withdrawn before  maturity date, the interest on the deposit amount may not be paid to the account holder and also stated that some percentage from the principal amount also will be deducted by opposite party no.1&2, for which the complainant is not willing to withdraw the said amount and requested to returned back the RD pass book for which the then postmaster of opposite party no.4 one purushotham chowdary gave a duplicate pass book on 03.06.2009 with a entry of Rs.1,76,000/- is mentioned in the RD account of the complainant.  

           3.  The complainant further submits that at the end of the August 2009, the fraud played by the subordinate of opposite parties 1 to 3 on me and also on some other innocent customers was came to light and then I have demanded the post master of op.no.4 to return the pass book and then he told that there is no ledger in his possession. The opposite parties 1 to 3 came to the office of the 4^th opposite party and inspected all records and as per the enquiry, in the RD account of the complainant the amount of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn. Accordingly the complainant gave a statement to the opposite parties 1 to 3 that he never withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his account. The complainant further submits that he came to know by enquiry officers of the opposite party no.1 to 3 that the sub-postmaster of 4^th opposite party forged withdrawal form and other forms and created documents as the complainant withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her RD account. Then the enquiry officers of opposite parties 1 to 3 stated that they will solve the problem and definitely the amounts will be paid to the sufferers including the complainant. Thus the misappropriation of funds taken place through the 4^th opposite party not only on the complainant and also for several customers who deposited their amount with the 4^th opposite party.

           4. The complainant had continuously approached the opposite parties 3&4 personally and requested to resolve the problem, but there is no proper response. Then all the opposite parties have requested the complainant to withdraw the remaining balance amount in his RD account by transferring to the savings bank account and hence the complainant  agreed to transfer an amount of Rs.1,46,000/- in to her savings bank account bearing no. 2094928. Accordingly he has withdrawn the above said amount. At that time all the opposite parties assured the complainant that, after the completion of the enquiry they will pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest from the date of the withdrawal ,which was misappropriated by the subordinate of the opposite parties. Hence by believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant withdrawn the above said amount. But till date the opposite parties have not chosen to refund the amount Rs.50.000/- with interest. Hence because of the fraud played by the subordinates of the opposite parties during the course of his employment while discharging his duties which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence all the opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as there is a deficiency of service on part of them. In spite of requests made by the complainant through letters and in person, the opposite parties have not chosen to settle the amount, hence he filed the present complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 4.

          5. Notices  were served  and opposite parties came in to appearance and 3^rd opposite party filed the written version and admitted that the complainant opened the  RD Account No.12191 and he paid monthly deposit of Rs.4,000/- which starts from 17.01.2006 through the agent Smt.S.Visala and she paid the monthly deposits up to August 2009.  And the above said agent retained the RD pass book with her till fraud at Damalcheruvu Post office was came to light,  in the enquiry it is revealed that when the depositor requested the agent to close the RD Account in the month of January 2009, and the agent handed over the original pass book to the post master of Damalcheruvu. But when she enquired the post master he informed that if she closed the account prematurely, some amount will be deducted in the interest and as well as the principal amount and the same was informed to the depositor by the agent, hence the complainant wanted to continue the RD Account and accordingly she deposited the amount subsequent dates till the closure of the account. But the SPM of Damalcheruvu retained the original pass book but the agent pressurized the SPM to return the pass book on the reason that the depositor demanding the original pass book, for which he issued duplicate pass book with the entry of correct balance available in her RD Account without obtaining any application for the same.  The agent was satisfied with it and she continued to deposit in the said RD Account till her last payment i.e. August 2009 by the complainant and further contended that it is a fact that the fraud was taken place at Damalcheruvu and the agent was handed over the original pass book to the sub post master without any valid receipt which facilitate the SPM to withdrawal an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the said RD Account of the complainant. In the enquiry also the officials verified the records and noticed that the said withdrawn of Rs.50,000/- was taken place but the complainant disowned  her signature in the voucher (SB7). It is not known as to why the complainant/agent did not question the prime offender for issuance of the duplicate pass book without obtaining the application for duplicate pass book when the original was not lost from their custody. But however the agent satisfied to the balance noted in the duplicate pass book and continued to the subsequent transaction. However the complainant is denying the withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- made in her RD Account on 15.09.2008 but the closure of the RD Account by the complainant was not brought to the  notice of this office. The opposite party further contended that the complainant was given her statements on 16.01.2010, 06.04.2010, 17.09.2011 and 30.05.2012 and 15.04.2013 with different versions about the case from the beginning.  The act of the complainant facilitates the prime offender the commit fraud in her RD Account. As per the rule on the subject the complainant should keep the RD pass book with her only, and she should not allow the agent to retain the pass book with her and if at all the pass book is handed over to the post office, she should demand valid receipt .In the above circumstances the claim of the complainant couldn’t be admitted. Hence the opposite party no.3issued to the letter to the complainant to give clarifications about the contradictions of statements given by her but after receipt of the said letters also the complainant failed to turn up. And the opposite party further contended that as per Section 6 of the Post Office Act clearly barred the jurisdiction of the court and this complainant is not a consumer. Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

          6. The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A16, on behalf of the opposite party no.3 one T.A.V.Sharma S/o. T.Rammurthy, Superintendent of post office filed evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B4 on behalf of opposite party no.2 M.Sugunamma W/o. P.Subbaramayya, Postal Public Relations Inspectors, Tirupati filed her chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B12, written arguments of both parities filed and oral arguments were heard.

          7. By perusing the complaint, written version, and affidavits and documents filed by both sides now the points for determination are:

        

1. Whether this forum got jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint?  
2. Whether the complainant withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his RD Account as alleged by the opposite party?
3. Whether there is a deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?
4. To what result?

           8. Point No:-(i):   The opposite parties contended  that as per sec.6 of Indian Postal Act, this forum has no jurisdiction. Infact Sec- 6 speaks about delay, damage or loss of letters, parcels etc. in the transit. But the present case is the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of amount from the account of the complainant and the alleged fraud committed by the then post master is sought to be highlighted by the complainant. Hence the nature of the dispute is not covered by sec-6 of the Indian Postal Act. Accordingly this point is answered holding that this forum got jurisdiction.

        9. Point No :-(ii)&(iii).  There is no dispute regarding the Recurring Deposit Account bearing no.1219 in the name of the complainant and also she deposited Rs.4,000/- every month from 17.01.2006 and accordingly she deposited 44 months with a tune of 1,76,000/- same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main contention of the complainant is that when she approached the opposite parties when she came to know the news by newspapers, that the fraud was committed by the then officials of the post office of Damalcheruvu. So in order to withdraw an amount which is lying in her RD account bearing no.1219 in the month of 13.05.2011, but the opposite parties transferred an amount of Rs.1,54,408/- to the SB account of the complainant bearing no. 2094920, surprisingly the complainant asked the opposite party that she deposited an amount of  Rs. 1,76,000/- as principal amount and also she is entitled for the interest for the above principal amount, she made a requisition to the post office authorities . The said officials assured her they will resolve the matter by conducting the enquiry. But after the enquiry the opposite parties revealed that the complainant was already withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 15.09.2008. But the complainant contended that she never withdrawn any amount from her RD Account prior to 13.05.2011. The main contention of the complainant that on behalf of her one agent named visala approached the opposite party no.4 on 03.06.2009 to withdrawn the amount lying in her RD Account, she handed over the original pass book of RD to one purushotham Chowdhary who worked as post master, he stated that she will lose the interest and also some amount in the principal also if she closed the account prematuredly. So by believing the words of the post master she continued the account and she paid the remaining months and she requested him to hand over her original pass book but the post master issued duplicate pass book Ex: A1 on 03.06.2009 with an entry of Rs.1,64,000/-  in the place of original pass book but he failed to hand over the original pass book. But the opposites parties stated that the complainant never made any application for the issuance of duplicate pass book in the place of original one. For arguments sake we can believe the contention of the opposite parties how the post master issued the duplicate pass book in the place of original one. Here the main dispute is regarding the withdrawal of an amount of Rs.50,000/- by the complainant on 15.09.2008 as alleged by the opposite parties. But in order to prove their contention the opposite parties stated and filed the Ex: B4 to B12 the statements of the complainant and the agent are contradictory in nature and they gave the statements with different versions. But those Ex.B4 to B12 cannot be considered because the opposite parties failed to file the original statements rather than Xerox copies. If at all the amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant through withdrawal form it may be transferred to SB account only, but regarding such payment the opposite parties failed to prove the same and  what prevents the opposite parties to file the concerned withdrawal  form or any ledger copy of particular transaction of disputed  withdrawal as alleged by the opposite parties. Hence in the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the amount was withdrawn by the complainant is not at all sustainable and hence it cannot be considered.

          The next contention of the opposite parties there is some latches on part of the complainant that she fails to take the any receipt from the post master when she handed over the original pass book to the post master and also she fails to inform or give any complaint to the higher officials of the opposite parties. But in this case the complainant came to know about the fraud  of the post master by news papers only how can he expect the same prior to the incident. It is most unfortunate that when the opposite party was very much aware of the fact that Purushotham Chowdhary said to have committed fraud to a tune of lakhs of rupees and when the complainant expressed her grievance and the contention of the opposite parties that  she withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 15.09.2008  with the entries in the  withdrawal form they were satisfied  that no fraud was committed with regard to the account of the complainant is not acceptable  because burden lies on them to prove that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn on 15.09.2008 and prove the same they have to file the relatives documents of particular transaction i.e. withdrawal form, or any ledger copy, but except the statements of the complainant and agent Ex.B5 to B12 the opposite parties fail to file withdrawal form except mere allegation the opposite parties fail to prove he alleged withdrawal hence in the absence of crucial documents of particular transaction the contention of opposite parties cannot be considered. And the opposite parties failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant in the right prospective shows the element of deficiency of service and if the fraud played by the employee, the employer cannot escape the liability and accordingly it is held that the complainant proved the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered against the opposite parties.

          10. Point :-(iv).    In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay the claim  amount of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from 15.09.2008 till realization. And also opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousands only) towards costs of the litigation.  The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the order within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousands only) also shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  

            Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation in Open Forum, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open forum this the 10^th day of July, 2015.

         Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-                                                                                                           

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

C.C.No.20/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Smt. Mulavagili Syamala (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party’s.

 

RW-2: M.Sugunamma (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-3: T.A.V.Sharma (Evidence Affidavit filed). 

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	Photo copies of R.D. Account pass book, B.No.12191. Dt: 03.06.2009.
2.	Office copy of Legal Notice issued to Opposite Parties 1 to 4 with postal acknowledgements. Dt: 02.11.2012.
3.	Copy of letter sent by 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant.  Dt: 05.12.2012.
4.	Office copy of Legal notice sent to the Opposite Parties 1 to 4.  Dt: 08.03.2013.
5.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 13.3.2013.
6.	Office copy of Legal Notice sent to the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 along with postal receipts and acknowledgements. Dt: 08.07.2013.
7.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 30. 07.2013.
8.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 25. 07.2011.
9.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 01.11.2012.
10.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 28.01.2013.
11.	Copy of letter sent by the 3rd Opposite Party to the counsel for the complainant. Dt: 22.03.2013.
12.	Copy of answers for the questions given before Inspector of Posts, Piler. Dt: 15.04.2013.
13.	Photo copy of statement given by one S.Visala the Postal agent.
14.	Statement in connection with the quantum of misappropriation of the funds by the subordinate of the opposite parties issued by the piler I.P.O. filed on behalf the complainant.
15.	Original post office savings Account No.2094920 of the complaint issued by    Damala Cheruvu S.O. filed on behalf of the complainant. Dt: 15.01.2009.
16.	Details of payments made by the complainant and others connection of R.D.Accounts for the period from 17.01.2006 to 20.08.2009 issued by Damalacheruvu (S.O) filed on behalf the Petitioner/Complainant.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY’s

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Letter issued by opposite party No.3. Dt: 01.11.2012.
2.	Letter issued by opposite party No.2. Dt: 28.01.2013.
3.	Acknowledgement Card for No.2. Dt: 05.02.2013.
4.	Letter issued by Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 22.03.2013.
5.	C.C. of Statement given by the complainant before inspector of Posts, Piler. of 17.09.2011.
6.	C.C. of statement given by the complainant before Inspector of posts, Vayalpadu. Dt: 16.01.2010.
7.	C.C. of statement given by the complainant before Inspector of posts, Srikalahasti.
8.	C.C. of statement given by the complainant before inspector of posts, Piler.
9.	C.C. of statement given by the S.Visala MPKBY Agent before inspector of posts, Piler.
10.	C.C. of statement given by the S.Visala MPKBY Agent before inspector of posts, Vayalpadu.
11.	C.C. of statement given by the S.Visala MPKBY Agent before inspector of posts, Piler.
12.	C.C. of statement given by the S.Visala MPKBY Agent before inspector of posts, Piler.

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-

President

                                                               // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to: The complainant

                 The opposite parties.