Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/508

Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Abhi Adv.

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 508 dated 27.08.2015.                                                        Date of decision: 30.11.2021. 

 

Harjit Singh son of Shri Rajinder Singh, R/o. H. No.1740/8C, Bank Colony, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana through Shri Rajinder Singh S/o. Shri Kartar Singh, R/o. H. No.1740/8C, Bank Colony, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Posts and Telecom, Parliament Street, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Posts, Department of Post, Post Offices, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana.                                                       
3. The Post Master, Sidh Peeth Post Office, Ludhiana.                                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Amrit Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that the complainant along with his grand-mother Smt. Pritam Kaur purchased 10 Kissan Vikas Patras (KVP) of the value of Rs.10,000/- each bearing serial No.438883 to 438892 with registration No.12428 to 12437.  Pritam Kaur died on 09.12.2001. As the complainant was in need of money, he searched for KVPs in his house, but could not locate them. The complainant contacted OP3 and came to know that the same had already been encashed by some person on 08.06.2002, 09.06.2002 and 15.09.2002 for a value of Rs.1,26,000/-. OP3 further informed the complainant that KVPs were encashed by some person claiming himself to be Harjit Singh and he was identified by one Jang Singh, Peon in the post office. The complainant called upon OPs to pay Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainant, but to no avail. The complainant sent letter dated 02.03.2005 to Senior Superintendent of Posts, Ludhiana, but despite that no payment was made on account of encashment of the KVPs. Eventually, the Senior Superintendent of Posts, Ludhiana vide letter dated 27.12.2006 requested the police to register a case regarding fraudulent encashment of KVPs. The complainant got served legal notices through his counsel Sh. Bhag Singh, Advocate on 22.04.2006, 24.04.2006 and 25.06.2006, but the post office concerned informed the complainant vide their letter dated 11.07.2006 to Sh. Bhag Singh, Advocate that the case was under investigation and fate would be ascertained after completion of inquiry. The complainant vide letter dated 17.01.2006 applied for certified copies of KVPs from Senior Superintendent of Posts, Circle Division, Ludhiana and also the information about the person who had encashed these KVPs. OP2 informed vide letter dated 07.01.2006 that KVPs were encashed by one person of name of Harjit Singh on the attestation of Jang Singh, Group-D, Sidh Peeth Post Office, Ludhiana and the case was under investigation. Later on, the complainant received letter dated 11.08.2009 whereby the complainant was asked to submit claim forms in respect of KVPs. The complainant immediately sent the claim form to the OPs, but the KVPs amounting to Rs.1,26,000/- were not encashed. It is also alleged in the complaint that after the receipt of the claim, a case was registered vide FIR No.23 dated 23.02.2007, U/s.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Division No.8, Ludhiana against Kiranjeet Kaur alias Kirna wife of Narinder Pal Singh and Maninder Singh son of Narinder Pal Singh, residents of Balloke Road, Vaddi Haibowal, Ludhiana. The said criminal case was decided by the court of Sh. Rahul Garg, JMIC, Ludhiana on 28.02.2013. The complainant further came to know that the KVPs were encashed fraudulently by some miscreants in connivance with Jang Singh, Peon working with OP3 and the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with interest has already been deducted from the salary of Jang Singh for payment to the complainant. However, despite repeated requests, the OPs have not encashed the KVPs. A legal notice dated 18.02.2015 was sent through Sh. Devinder Gupta, Advocate also failed to evoke a positive response from the OPs. Hence the complaint whereby a request has been made that the OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,26,000/- to the complainant along with interest @12% per annum from the date of encashment of KVPs i.e. 08.06.2002 and 15.06.2002 till actual payment along with compensation of Rs.2 Lac.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. The OPs never assured the complainant that they would make the payment of KVPs as the same had already been encashed on production of original KVPs with the signature of the complainant. Moreover, the case of the complainant is hopelessly time barred. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                 The complainant has filed rejoinder to written statement reiterated the above facts mentioned in the complaint and controverting those of the written statement.

4.                In evidence, special power of attorney holder of the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA as well as Ex. CB along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C49 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Harimohan, Senior Superintendent of Post office, Ludhiana City Division, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R13 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that it is the admitted case of the OPs that the KVPs were got encashed by some other person impersonating himself as complainant Harjit Singh. He has further pointed out that so much so the OPs even lodged the police complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and two persons namely Kiranjeet Kaur alias Kirna W/o. Narinder Pal Singh and Maninder Singh son of Narinder Pal Singh were prosecuted, though subsequently acquitted, as is evident from the judgment Ex. R13. Therefore, according to the counsel for the complainant, the factum of fraudulent encashment of the KVPs stands admitted by the OPs. Merely because the accused were acquitted on technical grounds is of no consequence so far as this complaint is concerned. The counsel for the complainant has further referred to the letter Ex. C40 dated 11.08.2009 whereby the OPs themselves asked the complainant to submit the claim forms duly completed along with two witnesses for further necessary action. Therefore, as per letter Ex. C40, the OPs almost admitted the claim and promised to pay the encashed amount of KVPs to the complainant and also got the claim form filled from him. However, later on, the OPs turned around and contrary to this in the letter Ex. C47 dated 08.06.2015, the OPs informed that the office was unable to sanction the claim of Harjit Singh in view of judgment of the criminal court dated 28.02.2013. The counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that in the letter Ex. C47, which was written in response to a request under Right to Information Act, the OPs have refused to admit the fact that the department has recovered the fraudulently encashed amount from Peon Jang Singh who had wrongly identified the impersonator who encashed the KVPs himself to be Harjit Singh. Therefore, according to the counsel for the complainant, the OPs are bound to return the encashment amount of Rs.1,26,000/- with interest and compensation.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs argued that the complaint is hopelessly barred by time. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that even otherwise there are allegations of fraud, impersonation etc. which cannot be tried by way of summary procedure and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.

9.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions of the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

10.              So far as the contentions of the counsel for the OPs that there are allegations of fraud and mis-appropriation are concerned, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon II (2015) CPJ 462 (NC) in Sarita Devi Prakashchand Jain Vs Ramchandra Shambu Chaudhari & another  whereby it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that even if forgery and misappropriation was committed by pigmy agent, which was under the control and supervision of the bank, the bank was liable for its omissions and commissions and possibility of the OPs acting  in connivance with each other cannot be ruled out and the complaint was allowed. The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon I (2010) CPJ 312 (NC) in Sutlej Textile and Industries Ltd., Vs Punjab National Bank whereby it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that despite allegations of fraud, cheating, forgery, the complaint based primarily on deficiency of service is maintainable and the jurisdiction cannot be ousted merely because of some defect in the complaint. In the light of the law laid down in the cited cases, it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission merely because there are some allegations of fraud and mis-appropriation which is alleged to have taken place at the part of office level.

11.              So far as the questions of merits of the case and limitation are concerned, it has been alleged in the complaint itself that the KVPs were purchased on 07.12.1999. The maturity date was 07.12.2005. The KVPs were purchased in the name of the complainant Harjit Singh and his grand-mother Pritam Kaur. It has been alleged in the complaint itself that Pritam Kaur died on 09.12.2001 and thereafter, as the complainant was in need of money, he contacted post office for encashment of KVPs and came to know that the same had been already encashed on 08.06.2002, 09.06.2002 and 15.09.2002. The complainant has proved on record letter Ex. C19 dated 02.03.2005 addressed to the Senior Superintendent Post Office, Ludhiana mentioning that he had come to know from Sidh Peeth Post office, Ludhiana that the KVPs in his name and that of his grand-mother have been encashed by some unknown persons and the payment be made to the complainant. From Ex. C19, it is evident that on 02.03.2005, the complainant was aware that the KVPs had been encashed and he had contacted the concerned post office prior to 02.03.2005 for encashment. Therefore, the cause of action arose to the complainant to file the complaint on 02.03.2005. The counsel for the complainant has tried to make out a case that the OPs were not in position to take a final call regarding the payment of KVPs to the complainant as the criminal case was pending as stated in their communication Ex. C47 dated 08.06.2015Here it is pertinent to mention that the criminal case had already been decided on 28.02.2013 vide judgment Ex. R13 passed by the court of Sh. Rahul Garg, JMIC, Ludhiana. Therefore, the period of limitation cannot be counted from 08.06.2015. The counsel for the complainant has also relied upon letter Ex. C40 addressed by the complainant to the OPs on 11.08.2009 asking him to fill the claim forms. Even the period of limitation is counted from 11.08.2009 even then the complaint is time barred as the complaint in this case was filed on 27.08.2015. It is the settled proposition of law that the period of limitation is to be counted from the date when the cause of action arisen for the first time. As stated earlier, the complainant came to know prior to 02.03.2005 when he wrote letter Ex. C19 to the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ludhiana that the KVPs had been encashed by some other person.

12.                In para No.20 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the cause of action arose to the complainant on all the dates when KVPs were purchased, when they matured, when they were fraudulently encashed, when the FIR was lodged and when the request for payment was made and further as to when the legal notices and replies were received and on 08.06.2015 when the Ops have refused to make the payment. The allegations made in para No.20 of the complaint cannot be said to be correct. The limitation period to file the has to be counted from the date when the complainant came to know about the encashment of the KVPs and not from the date of reply to the notices. The complainant was not be expected to wait endlessly for reply from the OPs to enable himself to extend the period of limitation. Therefore, his complaint cannot be said to have been filed within period of limitation.

13.              As regard merits of the case, it is further worthwhile to mention that as per the condition mentioned on the KVPs itself, the complainant was supposed to inform the Post office immediately for the loss of the certificate. In this case, it has not been anywhere pleaded as to when exactly the KVPs were lost nor any report is shown to have been lodged with the police regarding the loss or theft of the KVPs. The complainant straightaway came to the post office and even after he came to know that his KVPs have been fraudulently encashed by someone by way of impersonation, even then he did not get any case registered with the police. The KVPs were encashed between 08.06.2002 to 15.06.2002. The FIR was registered on 23.02.2007. It is further pertinent to mention here that the complainant Harjit Singh was a star witness in the case registered vide FIR No.23 dated 23.02.2007 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. A perusal of the judgment Ex. R13 vide which the accused were acquitted reveals that the main cause of the acquittal of the accused was non-appearance of the complainant Harjit Singh as a witness in this case. In para no.16 of the judgment Ex. R13, it is mentioned that the prosecution did not examine complainant Harjit Singh. Secondly, a perusal of judgment Ex. R13 further reveals that the accused of the case took a defence in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that complainant Harjit Singh and his father Rajinder Singh had obtained the whole money which were deposited in the different post offices without obtaining the succession certificate from the court. The accused further took the plea that Pritam Kaur, grand-mother of the complainant had executed a will in favour of Narinder Singh, father of accused Maninder Singh and also in favour of Rajinder Singh father of Harjit Singh. This indicates that the complainant Harjit Singh and accused Maninder Singh are first cousins. It is further mentioned in the will Ex. C18 itself, placed on record by the complainant himself, that Pritam Kaur had two sons namely Narinder Pal Singh and Rajinder Singh and accused Maninder Singh is none else as is son of Narinder Pal Singh and accused Kiranjit Kaur alias Kirna is the wife of Narinder Pal Singh. All these facts and circumstances have not been candidly disclosed by the complainant while filing the complaint. Moreover, it appears that the complainant himself did not deliberately appear as a witness in the criminal case resulting in acquittal of the accused for which an adverse inference ought to be drawn against him. In the given set of circumstances, possibility of collusion between the complainant and accused Maninder Singh cannot be ruled out. Besides, as stated above, the complaint is time barred as well. Therefore, the above conduct of the complainant cannot be said to be bonafide.   

14.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

15.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.11.2021.

Gobind Ram.