DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 43 of 2020.

 

Shri Kishan Dhanuk,

S/O. Lt. Durga Prasad Dhanuk,

Of Malancha Nagar, 

P.O.-Kunjaban,, P.S. - N.C.C.,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799006…..................................................................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Director of Postal Service,

   (Head Quarter)

North East Circle,

Shillong, Meghalaya,

Pin-793001.

 

2. The Superintendent of Post Office,

Agartala Division, Agartala Head Post Office,

P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001,

 

3. The Postmaster,

Agartala Head Post Office,

Agartala, Tripura(West),

Pin-799001................................................................................................. Opposite Parties.

 

 

       __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Debasish Datta,

  Sri Rajib Choudhury,

  Advocates.

 

For the O.Ps.    : Sri Biswanath Majumdar,

  Advocate. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :   23/ 05 /2022.

J U D G M E N T

         The Complainant, Shri Kishan Dhanuk, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining deficiency of service against the O.P. Nos.1,2 & 3. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a saving bank account holder of the O.Ps. vide his account No.1760056344, in the pass book it was categorically mentioned that the mode of operation is self. The Complainant initially had been servicing in the Department of the O.P. as an outside worker for which he had been receiving his wages @ Rs.150/- per month since before 1980. Thereafter, O.P. very much satisfied and regularized him in his service in the month of June,1980 as a regular Group-D employee in the Department of O.Ps. Then, complainant after discharging his entire service life for the department of the O.Ps. retired on 30/06/2016. After retirement Complainant received a huge amount from the authority of the O.P. like from the pensionary benefit, leave salary, commutation of pension and others which as per his direction the O.Ps. deposited in his savings account vide No.1760056344. The Complainant further submitted that some person with the assistance of employee of Post Office, O.Ps. already has withdrawn from the account of the Complainant in total Rs.11,85,000/- by using 04(four) Nos. of cheques on 19/02/2020 by cheque vide No.10,4505 of Rs.80,000/-, on 12/03/2020 by cheue vide No.104507 of Rs.35,000/-, on 21/03/2020 by cheque vide No.104508 of Rs.2,70,000/- and on 24/03/2020 by cheque vide No.104509 of Rs.8,00,000/- by putting forged signature of the Complainant. Unfortunately concerned employee of the O.P. without verifying the signature with his specimen signature which are laying in the record of the O.Ps. cleared the cheques. Due to such deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the O.P. is liable to pay the entire amount of the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant is that of deficiency of service caused by the O.Ps. So, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.Ps. 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P. Nos.1,2 &3,  the Complainant has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.20,00,000/- which comprises for returning/depositing total Rs.11,85,000/- in his savings account vide No.1760056344 in the Agartala Head Post Office, Rs.5,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony, Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency of service and  Rs.15,000/- litigation costs from the O.P. Nos.1,2 & 3.    

Hence, this case. 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statements. 

In their written statements the O.Ps. submitted para-wise reply to the complaint in seritem. Mostly, O.Ps. denied and disputed averments and averred that the instant complaint is false and concocted and it is liable to be dismissed. 

  The O.Ps. in their written statements / written version stated that the complaint petition is barred by nonjoinder and misjoinder of the parties, as because, in accordance with the section 79 of the CPC, any case against the Central Government to be sued, the Union of India is required to be made a necessary party of this case, but the Complainant did not implead the Union of India as a party respondent. The O.Ps. stated that the son of the Complainant namely, Sri Bijoy Dhanuk who had allegedly withdrawn the total amount of the four cheques in question, has not been made a party in this proceeding who is also a necessary party. The O.Ps. also submitted that all the cheques in question mentioned herein bore the bearer name as Sri Bijoy Dhanuk, S/O. Sri Kishan Dhanuk, being the Complainant, herein . The O.Ps. submit that the allegations made by the Complainant are bogus and maligning on the part of the department of posts. O.Ps. further submitted that on 10/02/2020 neither Sri Kishan Dhanuk, being the Complainant, herein nor any of his representatives had ever reported the matter verbally or literally of the lost cheques in question to the respondent authorities. The Complainant has stated that the above mentioned cheques in question were lost which were not issued by him. In respect of the above, the Complainant did not lodge any FIR in any police station nor the matter of cheques in question stated to be lost has been brought to the notice of the O.Ps. authorities. 

          Ultimately, the O.Ps. made a prayer to dismiss the complaint as there is no cause of action and it is not maintainable in law.                                                       

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 7 documents comprising 27 sheets under a complaint petition dated 12/06/2020 and he also produced 01 document comprising 7 sheets under a Firisti dated 20/08/2020.  

    On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Sri Pradip Majumdar, S/O. Lt. Birendra Majumdar, Superintendent of Post Office at Agartala, Postal Division Office, Post Office Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura was examined. In this case O.Ps. produced 3 documents comprising 14 sheets under a Firisti dated 05/11/2020. 

          Neither party exhibited their documents. 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    On perusal of the pleadings of both parties and having regard to the evidence adduced by the parties, the following points are to be determined:

        (i). Whether the complaint is maintainable in law & facts?           

    (ii). Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

   (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation/ relief as prayed for?

ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

             From the record it is found that Complainant was absent for long and even on the date of arguments also Complainant was absent without any step. There was also no step from the side of the O.P. on the date of argument. Hence, the case will be decided on merit. 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:                                     

          For the sake of convenience all points are taken up together for the decision. 

           We have carefully gone through the complaint as well as written statement submitted by the O.P. and also gone through the oral evidences adduced from both the parties. The Crux of the allegation is that some persons with the assistance of the employee of Post Office(O.Ps.) has withdrawn a total amount of Rs.11,85,000/- by using of 4 nos. of cheques from the Savings Account of the Complainant lying in the Agartala Head Post Office without knowledge of the Complainant and signature of the Complainant was forged by some one. He informed the matter with the O.Ps. for redressal but they did not pay any heed.  

      From the written statement we find that Son of the Complainant namely, Sri Bijoy Dhanuk has withdrawn the said amount by way of 4 nos. of cheques and the cheques were bearer cheque but Complainant did not lodge any FIR in the Police Station informing the aforesaid matter. It is also found that the description of the cheques in respect of withdrawal of money are not tallied with the Complainant. 

    Though neither party exhibited any documents,  in spite of that we have gone through the photocopy of documents submitted by O.P. by Firisti dated 05/11/2020 which includes photocopy of 04 nos. of cheques which are in question. From the said  photocopy of cheques it is found that all the 4 nos. of cheques are bearer in nature and the name of bearer is/was Sri Bijoy Dhanuk. In the instant case Sri Bijoy Dhanuk was not made party. So complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

      From the examination-in-chief on affidavit submitted by Sri Pradip Majumder as OPW-1 who is holding the post of Superintendent of Post Office, Agartala, we find that alleged payment was made after duly tallying and verifying the signature of Sri Kishan Dhanuk, in each and every case by the Assistant Postmaster(HOSB), Agartala Head Post Office. It is also stated that neither the Kishan Dhanuk nor any of his representatives had ever reported the matter verbally or literally of the lost cheques  in question to the authorities. The cheque  numbers mentioned in the complaint petition are also not tallied  with the used cheques in question. OPW-1 in his examination-in-chief further stated that the signatures of those cheques were tallied and matched with the specimen signature of the Complainant. Therefore, there is no any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the department. The disbursement of the said amount was made according to the norms and procedures of the postal acts and rules.                  

7.        On overall appreciation of the evidences adduced from both parties. We are in the opinion that Complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

          Accordingly, the complaint petition is dismissed & no costs.                          

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.