Haryana

Ambala

CC/28/2013

K.D.Sharma s/o J.R.Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET MITTAL

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.:28 of 2013

Date of Institution:  :30.01.2013

Date of Decision     :07.07.2015

K.D. Sharma son of Shri J.R. Sharma resident of village and P.O. Ghurkari, Tehsil and District Kangra (H.P.).

                                                                                                                                                                                    ……Complainant

                                                                                                 Versus

1.       The Union of India  through Secretary Department of Post, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

2.       The Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala (Haryana).

3.       The Senior Superintendent of Post offices Ambala, GPO Ambala Division.

4.       The Sub-Post Master, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt.                                                                              ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.                  

Present:       Sh. Puneet Mittal, Adv. counsel for complainant.

Sh. Dev Batra, Advocate counsel for Ops.

ORDER.

1.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that  the complainant was having joint SB account alongwith his wife Smt. Shyam Lata bearing No.436446 and three MIS account Nos. 17110,17111 & 17112 with the OP No.4.  Smt. Shyam Lata, due to her illness died on 22.07.2004 and thereafter on 01.09.2004, complainant approached the then OP No.4 to convert the aforesaid accounts to his name but he was shocked when the OP No.4 told that the amount of MIS accounts were transferred to their saving bank account No.436446 on 22.07.2004 and the amounts so transferred has also been withdrawn on 05.08.2004.  So, the complainant made a complaint about the act of the OP No.4 to the Head office of Ops to the effect that he never got transferred the amount from MIS Accounts to Saving Account nor he authorized any person to do so. Thereafter complainant to verify the facts, went to the office of OP No.3 and checked the withdrawal forms wherefrom it found that his money was withdrawn by another person by putting forged signature as witness and when the official of Ops i.e. Sh. S.P. Dogra, came to know about awareness of the complainant about his accounts, he lodged a false complaint before the office of Sub Post Master, Kangra against the complainant regarding excessive payment of interest just to hide/cancel his mis-deeds.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that enquiry in the matter was not conducted fairly by the Op No.3, so the complainant wrote letters in this regard to the Ops.  Complainant has further submitted that he never asked the Ops to transfer his MIS accounts to saving accounts rather the Ops had done this act on its own and that too without his consent and withdrawn the amounts of complainant by putting false signature of one unknown person as witness.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed before this Forum seeking relief as per prayer clause. 

                   The complainant has specifically mentioned in the present complaint that earlier a complaint in the matter  was filed on 18.07.2007 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra (H.P.) which was decided on 29.07.2008 in favour of complainant.  Against the said order of DCDRF, Kangra, Ops preferred an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla and the Hon’ble State Commission, Shimla dismissed  the same vide order dated 31.08.2012 on the point of territorial jurisdiction.  Thereafter, complainant filed a Revision Petition before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein the Hon’ble National Commission directed the complainant to file complaint afresh within the jurisdiction of Ambala City. Hence, the present complaint.     

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that no prior notice of 2 months as mandatory U/s 79 & 80 CPC has been served upon Ops and without prior notice, complaint/suit deserves to be dismissed.  Further the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and is bad for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties as Sh. S.P. Dogra (who is real son-in-law of complainant and having specific knowledge regarding the case in hand)  has not been impleaded as a party to the complaint  whereas all the accounts in question were opened by giving his address and he was authorized to act as a messenger for the said accounts/withdrawals and he also witnessed all the transactions. It has been further urged by Ops that a representation  dated 09.08.2010 was made by Sh. S.P. Dogra to Director Postal Authorities stating that “Pre-signed forms were  handed over to him  by complainant (his father in-law) on 21.07.2004 alongwith relevant passbooks and  accordingly the MIS accounts were closed  and their maturity value of Rs.1,65,000/- was deposited in their joint SB Account No.436446 as book transfer & there was no cash handling at all and complainant attended Sadar Post Office, Ambala on 05.08.2004 with him and signed withdrawal form for Rs.1,55,000/- from SB Account before the postal staff on duty and received this payment personally as confirmed by Smt. Kusum, PA  (SW-3 in departmental enquiry) and Smt. Veena Dhawan, SPM (DW-9) in their preliminary and oral statement.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant was a joint account holder of the Saving Bank Account and 3 MIS Accounts in questions with Smt. Shyam Lata and the complainant/depositor of the said accounts was availing the facility of auto credit of monthly interest earned on all the MIS to his joint-B SB A/c No.436446 standing in the same post office. Accordingly, the interest accrued monthly against these accounts was being credited in their joint-B S.B/Account.  It has been further urged by Ops that on due date of the said MIS Accounts, on production of passbooks accompanied by written application (SB-7 withdrawal forms) duly signed by one of the depositor Smt. Shyam Lata and certified by Sh. S.P. Dogra (son-in-law of complainant) with the remarks that “he knows the depositor personally and she has signed in his presence” the amount of 3 MIS accounts to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- was credited in joint SB account No.436446 of complainant on 22.07.2004  as per rules & thereby a total amount of Rs.1,72,504.30P was standing in the S.B. account  of complainant whereas all the MIS accounts were closed on 22.07.2004.  On 05.08.2004 & 06.08.2014, Rs.1,55,000/- & Rs.17,000/- were withdrawn personally by the complainant Sh. K.D.Sharma on the witness of Sh. S.P.Dogra, AAO, Circle office of Ops  and finally the alleged joint SB Account No.436446 dated 14.07.1992 was closed on 05.10.2004 and the balance amount of Rs.570.15p. standing in this account was paid to the depositor through his messenger Sh. S.P. Dogra on 05.10.2004 and as such there is no irregularity in closure of the said accounts, may be MIS or SB.  Ops further urged that as per provisions in Saving Bank Act that in case of joint-B type accounts, one of the depositors or either of the two survivors or the sole survivor, as the case may be, can operate  the account.  Accordingly,  there is no irregularity in closure of the accounts by one of the depositor in these cases. There is further provision in S.B. Act that  in case of re-investment of matured value of deposits, the investor can re-invest their matured securities through the agent/messenger and for this purpose the agent/messenger is required to produce passbook alongwith withdrawal form  duly completed and duly signed by depositor.  In view of these provisions, presence of depositor was not necessary as the matured value of all the three MIS accounts was re-invested in joint S.B. Account No.436446 in the name of the depositors.  Thus, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

3.                To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as  Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-20 and closed the evidence whereas  on the other hand, the counsel for the OPs  tendered affidavit of Sh. J.K. Gulati, SSPO as Annexure R/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-25 in evidence and closed the same on behalf of Ops.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that he alongwith his wife Smt. Shyam Lata (now deceased) was having joint Saving Bank Account No.436446 and three MIS Accounts Nos.17110,17111 & 17112 with OP No.4 at Ambala and his wife died on 22.07.2004. So, the complainant visited the office of the OP No.4 on 01.09.2004 and requested to convert the aforesaid accounts in his name but the officials of the OP No.4 told that the amount lying with the three MIS Accounts were transferred to their Saving Bank Account  on 22.07.2004 and the amounts so transferred has already been withdrawn on 05.08.2004 & 06.08.2004 respectively.  Counsel for complainant further argued that his money had been withdrawn by some another person by putting his forged signatures in witness of one Sh. S.P. Dogra (son-in-law of the complainant) who was never authorized to do so. Thus, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for a direction to Ops to make payment of 1,72,000/- alongwith interest & compensation etc.  

                   On the other hand, counsel for the Ops argued that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole grounds of maintainability, limitation, jurisdiction and non-joinder of necessary parties. The counsel for the Ops further argued that 3 MIS Joint Accounts were opened by the complainant alongwith his wife Smt. Shayma Lata and the same were closed on 22.07.2004 on due date on production of passbooks accompanied by written form/ application (SB-7 withdrawal forms) duly signed by one of the depositors Shyam Lata and  certified by Sh. S.P. Dogra (son in-law of the complainant) who presented himself as witness on the withdrawal form and endorsed that “he knows the depositor personally and she signed in his presence”. Hence, accounts in question were closed  as per S.B. Rules and accordingly the maturity amount of 3 MIS accounts which was Rs.1,65,000/- was credited in joint SB Account No.436446 on 22.07.2004 making total deposit in this account to the tune of Rs.1,72,504-15NP. and as per provisions of Indian Postal Act, in case of reinvestment of matured value of depositors, the investors can re-invest his matured securities through agent/messenger and for doing so, the agent/messenger is required to produce the pass book alongwith withdrawal form duly completed and singed by the depositors. In view of the provisions so referred, the presence of the depositors was not necessary as the maturity value of the three MIS Accounts was reinvested in saving account of complainant. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- & Rs.17,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant Sh. K.D. Sharma on the witness of Sh. S.P. Dogra on 05.08.2004 & 06.08.2004 respectively and  the balance of Rs.570-15NP. standing in this account was paid to the depositor through his messenger Sh. S.P.  Dogra on 05.10.2004 and the account was closed.  Therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the Ops. Moreover, on the complaint of the complainant, the specimen signatures of Shyam Lata  & K.D. Sharma on the withdrawal form was got examined by the Ops from Laboratory of the Govt. Examiner of questioned documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Shimla wherein it has been opined that “Both the questioned and the standard signatures have been written freely and there is no sign of imitation in their production. They also show natural variations among themselves which are the sign of genuineness. The characteristic similarities occurring between the questioned and the standard signatures are significant and sufficient and will not accidently coincide in the writings of two different persons but are only due to their common authorship.”  The counsel for the Ops vehemently argued that the complainant has already taken the payment through his son in law (messenger) Sh. S.P. Dogra and surprisingly having specific knowledge regarding roll of his son in-law, the complainant has not arrayed him as a party to the complaint rather he was very much necessary to be impleaded as a party to the complaint for proper decision of the case. Thus, the complainant in collusion with his son in-law S.P. Dogra wants to grab the Govt./public money and the complainant never lodged any FIR/complaint against his son in-law in the police. The accounts in question  were opened by the complainant by giving address of Sh. S.P. Dogra  meaning thereby that there were good and cordial relations between the complainant and Sh. S.P. Dogra and that is why he was authorized to witness the transactions and even to act as messengers for the said accounts. So, as per provisions of the Ops department, the accounts were legally closed by the department and after a lapse of time with some ulterior motive, the complainant has   filed the false complaint against the department.

5.                After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and considering the facts & records of the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant was  having one Joint SB Account as well as 3 MIS Joint Accounts alongwith his wife Smt. Shyam Lata  with the OP No.4 and said accounts were opened at the address of Sh. S.P. Dogra, son-in-law of complainant as is clear from documents Annexures C-1, C-2,  C-3 & C-5 respectively.  It is also not in dispute that the alleged amount of Rs.1,72,000/- ( Rs.1,55,000/- + Rs.17,000/-)  were duly withdrawn from the said Joint SB Account on 05.08.2004 & 06.08.2004 respectively  by the complainant on the witness of Sh. S.P. Dogra (son-in-law of complainant).  It is further clear from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Annexure R-25) that on the withdrawal form (SB-7), the signatures of complainant  K.D. Sharma are similar & identical to the signatures given in the post office at the time of opening of the accounts in question.  So, the preliminary objection of non-joinder of necessary parties raised by the Ops in their written statement prima facie appears to be genuine since on perusal of the file, it has come on record that Sh. S.P. Dogra son-in-law of the complainant was official of Ops and was posted at Ambala at the relevant time and the whole aforesaid accounts were opened at his address at Ambala and the amounts so withdrawn from the said accounts have been disbursed to complainant on the sole witness of Sh. S.P. Dogra being A.A.O. of Circle office and thus the complainant inspite of having specific knowledge regarding roll of his real son in law namely Sh. S.P. Dogra in the case in hand, has not impleaded him as a party in the complaint only to grab the Govt./ public money in connivance with his son-in-law i.e. Sh. S.P. Dogra.  Moreover, if the complainant was having any grievance against his son-in-law Sh.S.P. Dogra, official of Ops, regarding fraudulent withdrawal of aforesaid amounts or transactions of MIS & SB Accounts, he was free to lodge the criminal complaint/FIR against him but he has neither done so nor impleaded him as party to the said complaint wherefrom the possibility of collusion cannot be ruled out.   

                   So, in view of the above discussed facts, we are of the view  that   there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Ops as they have disbursed the whole deposited amount of S.B. & MIS accounts to complainant as per rules either to himself or through his messenger Sh. S.P. Dogra who is admittedly son-in-law of the complainant.  Further Sh. S.P.Dogra was a necessary party in the present case who can help the Forum to arrive at the best conclusion but he has not been arrayed as a party to the present complaint intentionally by the complainant to grab the Govt. /Public money. Hence, for lack of necessary party as well as no any deficiency in service on the part of Ops,  present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

 

ANNOUNCED:  07/07/2015                                                                                                         

                                                                                            Sd/-                     

                                                                                     (A.K. SARDANA)

                  PRESIDENT               

    

                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                        (ANIL SHARMA)                                                                                                                                                                                                       MEMBER