Haryana

Karnal

CC/134/2020

Shubham - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajinder Persad Munjal

11 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 134 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.03.03.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 11.12.2023

 

1. Shubham minor son of Shri Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Satpal through its legal guardian/father.
2. Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Satpal aged about 28 years both resident of village Jarifabad, post office Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala-133001.

2.     Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Karnal.

3.     Incharge Branch Post Office, Manjura, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Suman Singh…….Member

 

 Present: None for complainants.

                Shri Surender Saini, counsel for the OPs.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                The complainants have filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainants deposited various amounts in fixed deposits 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.	Shubha minor son of Shri Mukesh Kumar	Rs.1,07,000/- FD for one year.	17.06.2015	992874	Rs.1,07,000/- plus interest
2.	Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Satpal	Rs.1,07,000/- FD for one year.	08.11.2014	992581	Rs.1,07,000/- plus interest

 

The abovesaid amount was deposited by the complainants 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 interest on maturity as applicable to such accounts from time to time. 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 complainants 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 complainants were in need of the said money, it came to the notice of the complainants 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 complainants 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 complainants. 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 FDRs receipt from the complainants 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 complainants 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 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, complainants approached the OPs and their office for refund of the amount, only assurance was given that the complainants 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 principals. The original pass book and FDRs were taken into custody of the OPs under receipt for conducting enquiry and same is still in the custody of OPs. Thereafter, OPs have prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other without any reasonable cause and complainants are suffering loss of interest due to non release of above payments and they are 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 complainants filed the present complaint.

3.             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 complainants have account no.992874 and 992581 and has deposited FD for Rs.1,07,000/- on dated 17.06.2015 in the name of Shubham minor son of Mukesh Kumar and Rs.1,07,000/- in the name of Shri Mukesh Kumar on dated 08.11.2014 respectively. As per government record, account nos.992874 and 992581 are invalid and fake account numbers. Any accounts of these numbers do not exist in Government record. It is further pleaded that 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 GDSBP 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. As per photocopy of passbook attached by the complainants, Shri Pala Ram had made forged fixed deposit passbook accounts. It is further pleaded that it is clear from the passbooks that the said passbooks do not bear serial no.1 and 2 etc. 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 himself prepared and issued fake passbooks. These passbooks were taken into custody for enquiry verification of all accounts (1280) for the period w.e.f. 07.11.1997 to 16.01.2018. 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. 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.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Mukesh Kumar Ex.CW1/A, original receipt issued by Enquiry Committee Ex.C1, copy of passbook Ex.C2, original receipt issued by Enquiry Committee Ex.C3, copy of passbook Ex.C4, copy of aadhar card of Mukesh Kumar Ex.C5, copy of FIR Ex.C6, copy of complaint to C.M. Window dated 29.12.2018 Ex.C7, copy of complaint to CM Grievances Redress & Monitoring System Haryana, Chief Minister office dated 02.01.2019 Ex.C8, original pass books Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 27.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of M.R.Mittal, Senior Superintendent Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 13.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             It is pertinent to mention here that on 10.05.2023 arguments on behalf of OPs heard and on the request of learned counsel for the complainants case was adjourned for arguments.  Learned counsel for complainants has sought five adjournments for arguments but last two dates none has put into appearance on behalf of complainants. Present complaint pertains to the year 2020. No further adjournment is justified for the same purpose. Thus, we will decide the complaint on merits.

8.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs.

9.             As per version of complainants is that they deposited Rs.1,07,000/- on 17.06.2015 in the name of complainant no.1 and Rs.1,07,000/- in the name of complainant no.2 in the shape of FDRs for one year with the OPs. The said amount had deposited with Pala Ram being Branch Post Master. On maturity, when they were in need of money, then they came to know that the then GDSBPM, has committed suicide. When the new Incharge joined the said post office, he 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 complainants have account no.992874 and 992581 and has deposited FD for Rs.1,07,000/- on dated 17.06.2015 in the name of Shubham minor son of Mukesh Kumar and Rs.1,07,000/- in the name of Shri Mukesh Kumar on dated 08.11.2014 respectively. As per government record, account nos.992874 and 992581 are invalid and fake account numbers. Any accounts of these numbers do 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 complainants has deposited the claimed amount to Pala Ram the then Gramin Dak Sewak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) in the branch Post office Manjura or not? 

13.           To prove their case, complainants have placed on file receipts Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 dated 03.02.2018 amounting to Rs.1,07,000/-each, deposited with OPs’ branch at post office Manjura. The said amount had been deposited by them 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 original passbook Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 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 Ex.C7 dated 29.12.2018 to C.M. Window, complaint to CM Grievances Redress & Monitoring System Haryana, Chief Minister office Ex.C8 dated 02.01.2019. It has been proved on the file that complainants have deposited Rs.1,07,000/- on 17.06.2015 and Rs.1,07,000/- on 08.11.2014 with the OPs and same has not been refunded till date. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount.

14.           OPs have taken a plea complainants have account nos.992874 and 992581 and have deposited FD for Rs.1,07,000/- on dated 17.06.2015 in the name of Shubham minor son of Mukesh Kumar and Rs.1,07,000/- in the name of Shri Mukesh Kumar on dated 08.11.2014 respectively. As per government record, account nos. 992874 and 992581 are invalid and fake account numbers. Any accounts of these numbers do not exist in Government record. 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 M.R.Mittal, Senior Superintendent Ex.OP1/A and no other documentary evidence have been placed on file to prove its version. It is not proved on the file that alleged account does not exist. Hence, the plea taken by the OPs has not 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 complainants are 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 complainants are 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.2,14,000/- (Rs.1,07,000+1,07,000) to the complainants with interest @ as prescribed in the FDRs from its respective deposition till its realization. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them 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:11.12.2023.                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

  

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh)

                    Member                              Member