Karnataka

Kolar

CC/51/2015

Sri.Annayappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Superintendent, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.C.Kodandappa

17 May 2022

ORDER

Date of Filing: 28/10/2015

Date of Remand Order: 05/08/2019

Date of Disposal: 17/05/2022

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 17^TH DAY OF MAY 2022

PRESENT

SRI.SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SRI.SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 51 OF 2015 (REMANDED)

Sri. Annayappa,

S/o. Late Lachappa,

Aged About 68 Years,

Agriculturist, R/at: Bennaghatta

Village, Kasaba Hobli,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District.

 

(Rep. by Sri. C.Kodandappa, Advocate)                  ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Senior Superintendent,

Post Offices, Kolar Division,

Kolar-563 102.

 

2) The Post Master,

Post Office, Malur.

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are represented by

Sri. P.N.Krishna Reddy, Advocate)                  …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops and prays to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.98,050/- together with interest and costs of the proceedings.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he is an illiterate person and he knows only to make his signature.  Further the complainant states that, officials of the Ops persuaded him to make deposits in the Post Office at Malur, for which they issued receipts.  Further averred that, he was promised by the Ops that, the said deposits would be returned in huge sum after maturity and promised the complainant to issue necessary bonds for such deposits made.  The complainant further states that, he has deposited the total sum of Rs. 98,000/- with the Ops as detailed in the complaint at Para-3 of the complaint.  The complainant alleged that, despite of the repeated approaches made by the complainant with the Ops the Ops have failed to issue necessary bond towards the said amounts deposited by the complainants and they went on postponing the same. Further alleged that, in the first week of October-2014, when the complainant approached the Ops, the Ops have refused to pay the amount with interest or to issue the bonds for the said amount deposited.

 

02(a).       Further the complainant got issued the legal notice dated: 16.10.2014 to the Ops, but the Ops replied the said legal notice on 20.10.2014 and asked the complainant for the particulars of the deposits with necessary documents.  The complainant once again approached the Ops in the first week of November-2014 along with necessary documents, but the Ops did not properly responded to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

 

03.   On issuance of notice the Ops were appeared through their counsel and OP No.1 filed its version and OP No.2 by filing Memo sought for adoption of the version filed by the OP No.1.  

 

04.   In the version filed by the OP No.1 the Ops have contended that, they did not have any knowledge about the illiteracy as contended by the complainant.  Further it is denied as false that the complainant was persuaded to make deposits and assured to return the same with huge interest.  It is also denied as false that, the complainant was approached many times to the Ops and complainant also made demand with the Ops either for refund of the amount with interest or for issuance of bonds as alleged.  However the Ops have admitted that, on 16.10.2014 the said notice came to be issued which was suitably replied on 20.10.2014.  The Ops have denied that the complainant has approached the Ops during the first week of November-2014.  The OP No.1 has contended that, the complaint is hopelessly barred by law of limitation.

 

04(a).       The OP No.1 submits that, one Sri. L. Narayanappa, brother of the complainant, was working as Postal Assistant at Malur Sub-Post Office and the said Sri. L. Narayanappa has   misappropriated the funds available in SB/RD/NSC etc., to an extent of Rs.4,52,765=85, hence the departmental enquiry was also conducted against the said Sri. L. Narayanappa and he was awarded with punishment and so also dismissed from the service vide Memo bearing No.F1/2/95-96 LN, dated: 15.10.2001 as issued by Senior Superintendant of Post Offices, Kolar Division.  Further OP No.1 submits that, in order to recover the misappropriated amount the brother of the complainant Sri. L. Narayanappa was instructed to credit the amount which was misappropriated under UCR at Post Office.  Further the said Sri. L. Narayanappa, his father Sri. Lachappa and his brother Sri. Annayappa (complainant) were present and had voluntarily credited a sum of Rs.1,09,280/- under UCR on various dates during 1995.       Further it is contended that, the said receipts produced by the complainant would clearly reveals that, the amount was accepted towards RD/SB misappropriated amount and the misapplication was done by Sri. L. Narayanappa, while he was working as the Postal Assistant at Post Office, Malur.  Hence on the above said grounds the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

05.   In order to prove the case of the Parties, both parties have filed their respective affidavit evidence.

 

06.   After hearing the arguments on merits, my Predecessor allowed the complaint with cost and directed the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.98,050/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.  Further the Ops being aggrieved by the orders this District Forum preferred Appeal bearing No. 1513/2016 to the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.  The Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was pleased to allowed the Appeal by its Order dated: 05.08.2019 and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to consider the case afresh in accordance with law.  Further subsequent to remand of this case back to this Commission and in order to provide fair opportunity to both the parties, notice of Commission given to both parties.

 

07.   In pursuance of notice complainant and OPs were present and heard arguments of the respective counsel for complainant and Ops. 

 

08.   On the basis of the pleadings and the documents placed on record and on perusal of the same, the following points will arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs are deficient in their service for non honouring his claim ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint ?  

 

3.   Whether the present complaint is hopelessly barred by time as contended by the Ops?

 

4.  What order?       

 

09.   Our answers to the above stated points as follows:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in the Negative.

 

POINT (3):-             In the Affirmative

 

POINT (4):-              As per the final order

                                For the following:-

 

REASONS

10.   POINT (1) & (2):- The above points are interlinked to each other and hence taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of the facts and for convenience.

 

11.   On perusing the affidavit evidence of the complainant along with the complaint–petition it discloses that, the complainant retreated all the facts in the affidavit evidence stated in the complaint.  It is the specific case of the complainant that, he had deposited total amount of Rs.98,050/- with the Ops on different dates as per the saying of the Ops.  The particulars of the amount deposited is shown below:-

I)       Book No.1569.

i) Receipt No.94, dt: 20.07.1995 of             Rs.4,000-00

ii) Receipt No.97, dt: 20.07.1995 of            Rs.5,000-00

iii) Receipt No.99, dt: 21.07.1995 of           Rs.5,000-00

 

II) Book No.1571.

1. Receipt No.2, dt: 21.07.1995 of        Rs.250-00
2. Receipt No.5, dt: 27.07.1995 of        Rs.30,000-00
3. Receipt No.9, dt: 28.07.1995, of       Rs.4,000-00
4. Receipt No.16, dt: 01.08.1995 of      Rs.18,000-00
5. Receipt No.18, dt: 3.8.1995, of         Rs.30,800-00
6. Receipt No.39, dt: 14.8.1995, of       Rs.1,000-00_________

Total                                             Rs.98,050-00

       

Further in order to substantiate the deposits made by the complainant the complainant has produced receipts shown as per Annexure-01 to Annexure-09.  It discloses that, on different dates during the year 1995 the complainant had deposited the amounts as alleged in the complaint.  However Ops in their version and in their affidavit evidence have contended that, one Sri. L. Narayanappa who was working as Postal Assistant at the Malur Sub Post Office had misappropriated the funds kept in SB/RD/NSC etc., to an extent of Rs.4,52,765=85.  The said Sri. L. Narayanappa who is the brother of the complainant and the Postal Authorities directed the said L. Narayanappa to credit back the said misappropriated amount from the Post Office in presence of the complainant Sri. Annayappa and his father Sri. Lachappa.  Accordingly the complainant himself deposited the above said amounts with the Ops towards the RD/SB amounts as misappropriated by the brother of the complainant by name L. Narayanappa.  Further the said L. Narayanappa was also dismissed from the service vide Memo No. F1/2/95-96 LN dated: 15.10.2001. 

 

12.   It is worth to note that, the complainant in his complaint – petition or in his affidavit evidence not whispered anything about the misappropriation done by his brother L. Narayanappa and his termination from the service after holding departmental enquiry.  Further on perusal of the receipts in respect of deposits made by the complainant as shown as Annexure-01 to Annexure-09 it clearly discloses that, on the face of the receipt it is very well discloses that, the complainant had deposited the amounts in question on different dates during the year 1995 towards RD/SB for the fraud committed by Sri L. Narayanappa and hence the Ops have rightly contended that, the complainant deposited the above said amounts on behalf of his brother towards recovery proceedings.  Furthermore complainant though alleged that, he is an illiterate but he has engaged the services of an advocate on record, but he failed to mention, what is the nature of the deposits he made and also not whispered in affidavit evidence.  The complainant documents itself speaks to us that, the complainant made deposit subsequent to misappropriation of the amount by the said L. Narayanappa who is the brother of the complainant in the year 1995.  Under the circumstances the allegation of the complainant lack of cogent evidence on record and his all allegations holds no water.  The Law mandates that one who comes to the Court he should approach the court of law with clean hands and more over it is the burden on the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. On the basis of the evidence and documents placed on record we reach to the conclusion that, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and hence the complainant is not entitled for any kind of relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly we answer Point Nos.(1) & (2) are in the negative.

 

13.   POINT (3):-      On perusing the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant it discloses that, the complainant made several deposits during the year 1995 only, but the complainant did not produced any cogent evidence in order to satisfy this Commission why he has very belatedly filed this complaint against the Ops.  Furthermore the complainant has failed to produce the evidence when he was approached first time, but he deposed in his evidence that, he requested the Sub Post Master of Malur in the 1^st week of October 2014 for non-refunding of the amount or to issue the bond for the deposit, but as per the saying of the complainant himself and as an admitted facts as reveled by the receipts i.e., Annexure-01 to Annexure-09 though the complainant deposited the amount on different dates during the year 1995.  The first payment made on 20.07.1995 and when he paid the amount genuinely towards any deposit as alleged by the complainant for obtaining necessary bond for the said amount and the cause of action begins from the said date i.e., on 20.07.1995 and the last payment was made on 14.08.1995.  Though there is no doubt in the mind of this Commission that, the complainant made deposit of Rs.98,050/- on different dates during the year 1995 and the cause of action accrued to the complainant is from the date of deposit.  Furthermore on perusal of the records it also discloses that, complainant has also not filed any delay condonation application in support of his complaint.  Further the complainant produced the copy of legal notice dated: 16.10.2014 and the reply notice given by the Ops and it is an admitted that, complainant got issued the legal notice and it is duly served on the Ops, and the Ops replied the said notice on 20.10.2014 whereas the issuance of legal notice will not extend the limitation to file the complaint. 

 

14.   On the basis of the reasons discussed above we reach to the conclusion that, complaint is hopelessly bared by limitation.  Accordingly we answer Point No.(3) is in the Affirmative.

 

POINT (4):-

15.   On the basis of the reasons assigned while answering Point Nos. (1) to (3) and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 17^th  DAY OF MAY 2022.

 

 

    LADY MEMBER                               PRESIDENT