By Jayasree Kallat, Member
The petition was filed on 7-1-2010. The first complainant T.V. Gopalakrishnan had started a Recurring Deposit Account with Account No. 0827419 with a monthly deposit amount of Rs.500/- through the collection agent P.V. Jayanthi, M.P.K.B.Y. Agent attached to the Calicut Beach Post Office. The Account matured on 9-3-2009 with a maturity value of Rs.36,445/-. The first complainant had authorized the second complainant to receive the cheque from the opposite party. The first complainant had given authorization along with pass book to the second complainant to surrender before the opposite party at Beach Post Office. The opposite party was unwilling to give the maturity cheque to the second complainant who was the messenger of the first complainant. The first petitioner had duly authorized and entrusted the second petitioner to receive the cheque from the first opposite party. The first opposite party refused to hand over the maturity cheque to the second complainant. The complainants are alleging that the act of the opposite party was negligent and deficient in service. The first complainant has a grievance that due to the deficient act of the opposite party he had to suffer mentally and financially. This petition is filed by the complainant seeking relief from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties filed a joint version denying the allegations in the petition except which are specifically admitted. Petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Union of India is a necessary party in this case. The second complainant, Mohandas has nothing to do with the R.D. account in the name of the first petitioner. Mohandas is the husband of Smt. P.V. Jayanthidevi, the Mahila Pradhan Agent through whom the account was opened. As per Sec.2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. A consumer means any person who hires or avails services for a consideration. The opposite parties has not obtained any consideration from the second complainant P.V. Mohandas. He is not a consumer of the opposite party. P.V. Mohandas was functioning as an S.A.S. Agent attached to the office of the first opposite party. He had requested for cancellation of the agency by letter dated 21-7-2008 and the District Collector, Calicut has issued a cancellation certificate in his order dated 24-7-2008. Hence P.V. Mohandas’s claim that he is still an agent of National Savings Organisation is not correct. M.P.K.B.Y. Agents are appointed by the respective State Governments and attached to Post Offices. Smt. P.V. Jayanthidevi is a M.P.K.B.Y. agent attached to Calicut Beach Post Office. She is the wife of Sri. P.V. Mohandas, the second complainant in this case. An agent cannot act as messenger or witness of any type of withdrawal under any small savings schemes. This rule has been specifically mentioned in Para-13 Page-234 of the Post Office Small savings Scheme Part-1 ( Reference Book). Of late many agents have committed huge frauds thereby putting depositors in great difficulties. In many of such incidents close relatives of the agents were also involved. The first petitioner had opened 5 year R.D. account with a monthly deposit of Rs.500/-. The said R.D. account was due for closure on 9-3-2009 and all the official formalities relating to the closure of the account were completed at Calicut Beach Post Office and a cheque for Rs.36445/- was kept ready at the Post Office under safe custody. The second petitioner had approached the post office claiming the cheque as a messenger of the first petitioner. The cheque was not released in view of the facts and circumstances that P.V. Mohandas, the second complainant who acted as the messenger of the first complainant was the husband of the M.P.K.B.Y. Agent Smt. P.V. Jayanthidevi. The Post Master by letter No. CDB/ Misc/RD dated 16-3-2009 requested the first petitioner to take payment of the maturity amount. The depositor did not turn up to receive the cheque. The opposite party is discharging duties as per the rules and regulations of the Department of Posts on the matter of Savings Bank. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the petition.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
First complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 to B10 were marked.
The complainant’s case is that he had started a Recurring Deposit Account with Account No. 0827419 with a monthly deposit amount of Rs.500/- per month through the collection agent, P.V. Jayanthi, MPKBY Agent attached to the Calicut Beach Post Office. The R.D. account was matured on 9-3-2009 with a maturity value Rs.36,445/-. On maturity of the account the first complainant had entrusted the second complainant along with authorization letter authorizing the second complainant to receive the cheque from the first opposite party. But the first opposite party failed to give the maturity cheque to the second complainant. According to the first complainant the act of the opposite party is negligent and deficient in service. The opposite party has taken the contention that as per the Post Office Rules- 36 of S.B. Manual Vol. 1 acceptance of witness for identification of a depositor is subject to satisfaction of Post Office. In this case the argument of opposite parties is that the agents are not permitted to act as messengers for the depositors in respect of withdrawals. Smt. Jayanthi is the agent through whom the first complainant had started the R.D. account. On maturity of the account the first complainant had entrusted the second complainant to receive the cheque amount. Opposite party has refused to give the cheque to the second complainant. The reason given by the opposite parties is that the second complainant Mohandas is the husband of the agent and hence the chequue cannot be handed over to the agent’s husband also. The first complainant had repeatedly requested the opposite party to release the cheque to his messenger, the second complainant. Opposite party has not released the cheque as per Ext.B4 Section-13 which says that unauthorized person like male relatives of Mahila Agent should not be permitted to transact the business on behalf of a Mahila Agent. But in this case the definite stand of the complainant is that he had entrusted his friend and neighbour P.V. Mohandas for withdrawal of the matured R.D. account. First complainant had appeared before the Forum and given evidence as PW1. In his deposition Page-2 he has clearly stated that he is working in Punjab National Bank where the working hours are from 10 to 5. The working hours of the opposite party are 9 to 5. As he is a busy person he had entrusted Mr. Mohandas to withdraw the cheque of the R.D. account. The opposite party denied to release the cheque due to which the complainant had to suffer mentally and financially. The counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued basing on Ext. A4- Important General Orders- Page- 538. In Ext.A4 the facilities of messengers to depositors for withdrawal of R.D. account are stated. This facility has been provided in Rule-33 (1) of P.O.S.D. Manual Vol.1. This is a general rule and is applicable to all other Post Office Savings Scheme ie. R.D./T.D./M.I.S./ N.S.S. etc. This facility has been provided to the investor for getting discharge value of the National Savings Certificate through his messenger as per Rule-23 (1) of the P.O.S.B. Manual Vol.2. This facility has been provided to the depositor for his convenience so that he may withdraw the money through his messenger when he is not in a position to attend the post office personally. It is upto him to appoint any messenger on whom he has trust. It further explains that if the messenger does not deliver the money withdrawn by him to the depositor the post office is not responsible for it. Basing on Ext.A4 it is seen that the Post Office can release the withdrawal cheque or amount to the Messanger whom the party authorizes. Post office is not responsible whether the amount is misused by the messenger or not. In such a circumstance the first complainant in this case has entrusted the second complainant to withdraw the cheque of the matured account. The first complainant has appeared before the Court and given evidence that the second complainant is his friend and trustworthy and it is his wish to get the cheque through his messenger. First complainant is the consumer before this Forum who has approached the Forum with a grievance that opposite party has not released the matured account cheque to his messenger who is the second complainant in this case. Going through the relevant documents produced by both the complainant and opposite parties, we are of the opinion that this complainant is entitled for relief.
In the result the petition is allowed directing the opposite parties to release the R.D. maturity amount to the authorized person whom the account holder authorizes along with an interest of 9% for the matured amount from the maturity date 9-3-2009 till realization along with a compensation of Rs.1000/-within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 23rd day of September 2011.
Date of filing:07.01.10.
Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Copy of the registered lawyer notice issued by the petitioners to the opposite parties
with postal receipt and ack..dues. dtd.12.08.09.
A2. Letter issued by the Asst.Director office of the Post Master General northern region
Kozhikode to the counsel for the petitioners.
A3.Letter issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Calicut division to the
counsel for the petitioners dtd.05.10.09.
A4.Important General Orders page 538.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1.Request letter to the Post Master regarding the Non-Liability certificate.
B2.Photocopy of proceedings of the Dist.Collector, Kozhikode dtd.24.07.08.
B3.Photocopy of G.O of Ministry of communications & IT Dept of posts dtd.22.12.06.
B4.Post office small savings scheme part-1- the nomination of messenger facility is only
for depositing money collected by agents in the post office(Photocopy)
B5. Photocopy of news paper cutting relating to one of such frauds is produced;
B6.Letter of the second opposite party to Dist.Collector, Calicutdtd.18.09.09
B7.Letter CTB/Misc/RD dtd.16.03.09requested the Ist Petitioner to take payment to the
maturity amount.
B8.Under certificate of posting letter under the RTI act from the second petitioner by the
second opposite party dtd.27.03.09
B9.Reply letter of RTAI act dtd.21.07.09.
B10.Letter to the Senior Superintendent of post office dtd. 11.09.09.
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Gopalakrishnan.T.V(Complainant.)
Witness examined for the opposite party
RW1.Priya.P.Nair,IP(PG)O/OSSPOs, Calicut Divn.Kallai.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
