Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

88/2011

R.Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy Sub Post Master & Other - Opp.Party(s)

V.Girish Kumar

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   10.01. 2011

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.11.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.88/2011

             FRIDAY THIS  20^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER  2015     

 

R. Dineshkumar,

Rep. by his General Power of Agent,

Mr.V.Rajasekaran,

Plot No.499, 18^th Street,

IV Sector, K.K. Nagar,

Chennai 600 078.                                          ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1. The Deputy Sub Post Master,

Royapettah Post Office,

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,

Chennai Central Division,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                             ..Opposite parties.  

 

 

For the Complainant                 :   M/s. T.G.Balachandran  

 

For the Opposite parties            :    M/s. C.K.Vishnupriya ASGC

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.94,000/- with Bonus & interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-for mental agony  and Rs.10,000/- as cost of this complaint  to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

        The complainant submits that the complaint mentioned eight POMIS in Triplicane Post office was originally owned by Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and their family members as joint owner and were transferred to 1^st opposite party office from Triplicane Post office and new account numbers were given.  Subsequently one of the joint holders was deleted  and in his place the name of the complainant was inserted after observing necessary procedure as described in Rule 98 of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981.    Accordingly the said POMIS are standing in the joint name of complainant and one R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, R.Dineshkumar and L.Prashanth as mentioned in the list of deposit receipt.  The complainant after becoming joint holders of the above 8 POMIS complainant was authorized by the other joint holders to receive the monthly interest from the deposits regularly by giving necessary consent letter and instructions to the first opposite party.   Accordingly till the date of maturity the interest accrued on the said POMIS  list   have been credited in complainant savings bank account 2681546 without any objection.   Despite of several demands and legal notice sent by the complainant  the opposite parties have not permitted the complainant to withdraw the said  fixed deposits amount with accrued interest from the date of its maturity, despite of there were matured in the year 2009. .  As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.       

Written version of   opposite party is  as follows:-

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that  the original depositors of the said amount Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan SAS agent has committed frauds by fraudulently closing the MIS/SCSS accounts at Tiruvallikeni PO/Royapettah PO without the knowledge of the depositors and swindled the public money with assistants of other co-officer of the post office.  The modus operandi adopted by the said Agent was that he took possession of the pass books into his custody from the depositors and fraudulently closed the accounts without the knowledge of the depositors and swindled public money.   The opposite parties further submits that the depositors who have been defrauded made a complaint / claim to the  Department.   The investigation was taken up by the Department and the case was reported to Police.   Since the main offender is not a departmental official disc action could not be initiated.  Action was taken for reporting the case to police.   Subsequently taken up by CBI and registered the case under FIR No.RC.MAI 2009 A0017 dated 31.3.2009  and the said case is pending before CBI Court.  The accounts mentioned in the complaint by the complainant have been initially opened in the name of the said SAS agent and his son Sri.L.Prashanth at Tiruvallikeni SO and subsequently transferred to Royapettah SO and then there was irregular name transfer and the frauds committed by the SAS agent came to light and his whereabouts not known the accounts opened in the name of said SAS agent and his family members were frozen to settle the claim of the defrauded depositors.   Meanwhile the main offender Sri. R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, the joint owner of the said accounts along with the complainant expired on 5.7.2010.    Hence CBI has been requested vide this office letter No.F1/Misc/01/08-09 dated 7.2.2011 to issue necessary permission from competent court of law to close those accounts held in the name of the said agent and his family members and to utilize the proceeds of such closed accounts held by SAS Agent and his family members for depositing into PO accounts and to utilize the same to settle the claim of the depositors of defrauded accounts.   Therefore the opposite party is not in a position to allow further transfer in the accounts existing in the name of the said agent  till receipt of orders from the CBI court and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.      Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite parties have filed his proof affidavit and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

 

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the  opposite party, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the  opposite party and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A11  filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 filed on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     There is no dispute between the parties that the complaint mentioned eight POMIS in Triplicane Post office was originally owned by Mr.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and their family members as joint owner and were transferred to 1^st opposite party office from Triplicane Post office and new account numbers were given.  Subsequently one of the joint holder was deleted and in his place the name of the complainant was inserted after observing necessary procedure as described in Rule 98 of Post Office Savings Bank General Rules 1981.    Accordingly the said POMIS are standing in the joint name of complainant and one R.Lakshmi Narasimman, R.Dineshkumar and L.Prashanth as mentioned in the list of deposit receipt filed as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.  The complainant after becoming joint holder of the above 8 POMIS complainant was authorized by the other joint holder to receive the monthly interest from the deposits regularly by giving necessary consent letter and instructions to the first opposite party.   Accordingly till the date of maturity the interest accrued on the said POMIS  list as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 have been credited in complainant Savings bank account 2681546 without any objection.   The complainant made grievance in the complaint despite of his demand and legal notice dated 11.5.2010 the opposite parties have not permitted the complainant to withdraw the said  fixed deposits amount with accrued interest from the date of its maturity.  Despite of they were matured in the year 2009 as mentioned in the said document in Ex.A1 to Ex.A9.  As such the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  The complainant sought for direction against the opposite parties for the payment of the said amount with accrued interest from the date of their matured with compensation and litigation charges.

7.     Whereas the opposite parties have resisted the said complaint stating that upon the original depositor of the said amount Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan SAS agent has committed frauds by fraudulently closing the MIS/SCSS accounts at Tiruvallikeni PO/Royapettah PO without the knowledge of the depositors and swindled the public money with assistants of other co-officer of the post office.  The modus operandi adopted by the said Agent was that he took possession of the pass books into his custody from the depositors and fraudulently closed the accounts without the knowledge of the depositors and swindled public money.    The depositors who have been defrauded made a complaint / claim to the  Department.   The investigation was taken up by the Department and the case was reported to Police.   Since the main offender is not a departmental official disc action could not be initiated.  Action was taken for reporting the case to police.   Subsequently taken up by CBI and registered the case under FIR No.RC.MAI 2009 A0017 dated 31.3.2009  and the said case is pending before CBI Court.  The accounts mentioned in the complaint by the complainant have been initially opened in the name of the said SAS agent and his son Sri.L.Prashanth at Tiruvallikeni So and subsequently transferred to Royapettah SO and then there was irregular name transfer and the frauds committed by the SAS agent came to light and his whereabouts not known the accounts opened in the name of said SAS agent and his family members were frozen to settle the claim of the defrauded depositors.   Meanwhile the main offender Sri. R.Lakshmi Narasimhan, the joint owner of the said accounts along with the complainant expired on 5.7.2010.    Hence CBI has been requested vide this office letter No.F1/Misc/01/08-09 dated 7.2.2011 to issue necessary permission from competent court of law to close those accounts held in the name of the said agent and his family members and to utilize the proceeds of such closed accounts held by SAS Agent and his family members for depositing into PO accounts and to utilize the same to settle the claim of the depositors of defrauded accounts.   Therefore the opposite party is not in a position to allow further transfer in the accounts existing in the name of the said agent till receipt of orders from the CBI court and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they are not able to close the MIS account existing in the name of the said agent and the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    In support of the said contention the opposite parties has filed the copy of the FIR registered by CBI against the said Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and other nine co-depositors as Ex.B1 and letter submitted by 2^nd opposite party to the CBI Court dated 7.2.2011 as Ex.B2. 

8.     Therefore as per the contention raised by the opposite parties upon one of the joint owner of the complaint mentioned POMIS accounts namely Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan who was said to be deceased on 5.7.2010 and other nine persons CBI case was already registered and pending.  In view of the said Criminal case the complaint mentioned account as well as other accounts relating to the said accused in the said CBI case were frozen by the Department of the opposite parties and the steps were also taken by the opposite parties to close the said account and to settle the claim of the depositors in whose account the said fraud was committed through CBI before the CBI court in which the said criminal case is pending.   On the said ground the opposite party is not in a position to permit the complainant to withdraw the said amount in the said accounts is acceptable. 

9.     Further on perusal of Ex.A9 dated 5.9.2003 is appear to be a sale voucher executed by the Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan to the complainant  having received a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as consideration for the sale of POMIS pass book value of Rs.1,72,000/-  bearing in his name with his wife L.Kousalya, and his son L.Prasanth and another son L.Prabhu.  Therefore the said Ex.A9 cannot be considered to be a proper consent letter given by the Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan as alleged by the complainant.   The complainant further averred in the complaint that on the basis of the said sale voucher Ex.A9 and surrender of the pass book of the aid POMIS accounts and also given a consent letter by the Sri.R.Lakshmi Narasimhan in the said accounts the complainant name has been included has joined holder.  The said sale voucher Ex.A9 not mentioned about the details of particulars of the POMIS accounts which were showed under the sale voucher and the case of the complainant the said POMIS accounts were stands in the name of L.Kosaliya,  L.Prasanth and L. Prabhu.  If so no such sale voucher are a consent letter obtained the above said other co-owners L.Kosaliya,  L.Prasanth and L. Prabhu and they were not signed in the Ex.A9 also if so how the said joint owner were deleted from the said accounts were not explained on the side of the complainant.  Further as per Ex.A9 sale voucher if the said POMIS account which were stand in the name of  R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and his wife and sons were sold to complainant as mentioned in it why the R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and the Prasanth were allotted to be a joint account holders with complainant in the compliant mentioned accounts were also not properly explained or clarified by the complainant.   Further the consent letter alleged to have been given by R.Lakshmi Narasimhan mentioned in the Ex.A9 was also not produced before this forum by the complainant.  Based on the above  said defects relating to legal issue in respect of the claim made by the complainant with regard to compliant mentioned accounts.   Further the claim of complaint mentioned accounts are also appear to be fraudulent transactions with the collusion of the their staff or officers of the said post office. 

10.    Further the consent letter of the deleted joint account holder namely L.Kosaliya,  L.Prasanth and L. Prabhu were not produced on the side of complainant and Prasanth who is the present joint holder in respect of the complaint mentioned POMIS accounts No.110793 and 110792 are also defect on the case of the complainant.  The non impleading of the said L.Kosaliya,  L.Prasanth and L. Prabhu as parties in this complaint will also made the complaint defective in respect of the claim made by the complainant in the complaint.   Though this defect in the compliant not raised by the opposite party the complainant being the preson approaching this forum seeking relief the complainant is bound to prove his case.   Whereas the complainant has miserably failed to do so in this case. 

11.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are taking steps to approach the CBI court in which the criminal case against the said deceased R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and other nine accused is pending for the confiscation of the said amount involved in the complaint mentioned accounts and the complainant has not proved that the complainant is independently entitled to receive the amount relating to the complaint mentioned accounts which are joint accounts in the name of complainant as well as deceased R.Lakshmi Narasimhan and his family members and the said joint account holders of  L.Kosaliya,  L.Prasanth and L. Prabhu being the necessary parties have not been properly impleaded in the complaint as parties, as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the complaint  against opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Considering the facts and circumstances parties have to bear their own cost of litigation and as such the points 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs.  

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 20^th   day of November   2015.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A2-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A3-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A4-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A5-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A6-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A7-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A8-       -      - Copy of Pass book

Ex.A9- 5.9.2003  - Copy of letter from the R.Lakshmi Narashimhan to the

                             Complainant.

 

Ex.A10- 3.8.2009 - Copy of legal notice from the complainant to the

                            opposite party.

 

Ex.A11- 11.5.2010 – Copy of legal notice from the complainant to the

                               Opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side  documents:

Ex.B1- 31.3.2009    - Copy of FIR registered by CBI.

Ex.B2- 7.2.2011     - Copy of letter of the 2^nd opposite party at CBI.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.