DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.114 of 2012
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 29.05.2012
DATE OF ORDER:- 20.03.2015
Prem Kumari wife of Shri Ram Kishan, Village Lehroda, Post Office Dharson, District Mahendergarh (Haryana)
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Union of India through Secretary Department of Posts, New Delhi
- Head Post Office, Narnaul, through Post Master, Head Post Office, Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh (Haryana)
- Senior Superintendent Post Master, Gurgaon Circle, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon (Haryana)
- Chief Post Master, General Post Office, Haryana Circle, Ambala, District Ambala (Haryana)
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri S. S. Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri V. S. Yadav, Advocate for the opposite parties
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant had opened a R.D. account bearing No.1351168 on 12.12.2012 with opposite party No.2 for a period of five years and she deposited 60 instalments at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of commencement till five years and the entries in this regard were made by opposite party No.2 in the pass book of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that she submitted all the relevant documents along with original pass book with opposite party No.2 and requested to pay the deposited amount of Rs.60,000/-, but opposite party No.2 has made the payment of Rs.45,000/- on 29.02.2008 to the complainant out of the deposited amount of Rs.60,000/-. The complainant has averred that the opposite parties have wrongly and illegally retained the amount of Rs.15,000/- without any rhyme and reason and the complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the opposite parties. The complainant sent letters dated 25.02.2009, 05.03.2009, 12.03.2009 and 13.05.2010 to the opposite parties for making the balance payment of Rs.15,000/- with interest, but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice through her counsel Shri Shankar Suman, Advocate, Narnaul to the opposite parties, but it went unheeded. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, besides claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. The opposite parties filed joint reply admitting that the complainant had opened a R.D. account No.1351168 with opposite party No.2 on 12.02.2012 with denomination of Rs.1,000/- per month through Smt. Sangeeta Goyal MPKBY agent. The opposite parties have averred that in October 2006 it came to notice that Smt. Sangeeta Goyal MPKBY mis-appropriated the amount of Rs.6,66,891/- of monthly deposits of various RD accounts operated by her. The appointing authority of Smt. Sangeeta Goyal, MPKBY agent, is the Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh at Narnaul. During the course of investigation it was found that Smt. Sangeeta Goyal MPKBY agent mis-appropriated the amount of Rs.15,000/- from RD account No.1351168 by not crediting the same in Govt. account and made bogus entries, affixed date and stamp on the pass book, the details of which are described in Para No.2 of the reply. The opposite parties have averred that the complainant has not arrayed Smt. Sangeeta Goyal MPKBY agent as party in the complaint, which is necessary party for just decision of the case. The complainant has failed to keep safe custody of her pass book as per the instructions printed on it. The opposite parties have admitted that the claim for an amount of Rs.15,000/- of the complainant defrauded by Smt. Sangeeta Goyal MPKBY agent was forwarded to the competent authority vide SPOs Gurgaon letter dated 18/20.11.2008. On examination, the competent authority found some short comings and same was returned back for removal of those observations. The claim was again sent back to SDI, Narnaul by SPOs Gurgaon on 16.02.2009 for compliance of observations of competent authority. The facts of the case were apprised to the complainant vide letter dated 25.02.2009. The claim of the complainant has since been sanctioned by the competent authority vide letter dated 30.05.2013. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. In order to make out her case, the complainant has simply placed on record her own supporting affidavit Annexure C-1.
4. In reply thereto, learned counsel for the opposite parties has made a statement that the reply filed by the opposite parties be read as evidence on their behalf.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have paid Rs.15,240/- after the filing of the present complaint, without interest on the delayed payment of said amount since the due date of 12.12.2007 to the date of payment. He further reiterated the contents of the complaint.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that agent Smt. Sangeeta Goyal mis-appropriated the amount paid by the complainant to her for depositing the same with the opposite parties; hence an enquiry was going on and the said amount could not be paid earlier and a sum of Rs.15,240/- including interest has been paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.
8. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- to the opposite parties’ agent Smt. Sangeeta Goyal, towards the payment of instalments of RD account for depositing the same with the opposite parties, had not been deposited by the said agent with the opposite parties and she mis-appropriated the same. As per the opposite parties contention, the said agent made bogus entries in the pass book of the complainant, the said agent also mis-appropriated the amounts of various depositors; hence, an enquiry was held against the said agent.
9. Admittedly, the said agent was duly authorized on behalf of the opposite parties to get open the account and to receive the amount for depositing the same in the account of the concerned depositors. R.D. account of the complainant was matured on 12.12.2007 and the opposite parties after making part payment withheld Rs.15,000/- due to the mis-appropriation of said amount by Smt. Sangeeta Goyal, the agent of the opposite parties. There is relation of principal and agent between the opposite parties and Smt. Sangeeta Goyal. The principal is liable for the acts of his agent. In view of the said legal preposition of law, the opposite parties cannot withheld the said due amount for such a long period. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we hold that the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the delay in payment of said amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant. It is ordered that the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated on the amount of Rs.15,000/- w.e.f. 12.12.2007 to the date when Rs.15,240/- were paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite parties shall be liable to pay enhanced interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment. No order as to cost.
Announced:-
20.03.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
