State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No. 660 of 2016
Ram Kumar Singh Bahdauri s/o Late Sh. Bhoop
Singh Bahdauri, aged about 90 years,
R/o Jheel Ko Purva near ITI, Banda, U.P. ….Appellant.
Versus
1- Union of India through Post Master General,
Kanpur Zone, Kanpur-208001
2- Union of India through Superintendent Post
Office of the Superintendent Post, Banda,
U.P.-210001
3- Union of India through Post Master,
Post Office, Degree College, Banda, U.P.
4- Sh. R.P. Verma s/o unknown, The then
Post Master, Post Office, Degree College,
Banda, U.P. through Superintendent Post,
Banda, U.P.
5- Sh. Mukund Lal Soni, s/o Unknown,
The then Assistant Post Master, Pose
Office, Degree College, Banda, U.P.
Through Superintendent Post. ….Respondents.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Mr. Pawan Nigam, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Srikrishna Pathak holding brief of
Dr. U.V. Singh for respondents.
Date: 31.10.2019
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed before this State Commission under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against judgment and order dated 3.10.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Banda in complaint no.208 of 2010, Ram Kumar Singh Bahdauria vs. Union of India & 4 others, whereby District Consumer Forum has dismissed complaint.
(2)
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, complainant Ram Kumar Singh Bhadauria
has filed this appeal.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Pawan Nigam appeared for appellant.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Srikrishna Pathak holding brief of Dr. U.V. Singh appeared for respondents no.1 to 3.
None appeared for respondents no.4 and 5.
I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records. I have perused written argument filed by respondents no.1 to 3.
In brief, relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint against respondents/opposite parties before District Consumer Forum, Banda wherein it has been stated that complainant is a senior citizen aged about 84 years and is a retired personnel of U.P. Police Services. He purchased Kisan Vikas Patras from post office of respondent/opposite party no.3 mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint. The date of maturity of Kisan Vikas Patras were 27.4.2009, 29.4.2009 and 2.5.2009 and total maturity amount of all Kisan Vikas Patras was Rs.4,84,000.00.
In complaint, it has been stated by appellant/ complainant that the appellant/complainant went to the Post Office of opposite party no.3 on 25.4.2009 where formalities for payment of Kisan Vikas Patras were completed by respondent/opposite party no.5 due to absence of respondent/ opposite party no.4. Thereafter, appellant/complainant was advised by respondent/opposite party no.5 to receive payment on 10.5.2009 so that he may get further interest for one month but 10.5.2009 was Sunday and appellant/complainant could
(3)
not go to the post office to get payment. Respondent/opposite party no.5 himself came to the house of appellant/ complainant on11.5.2009 with relevant documents and got signatures of appellant/ complainant for receipt of amount due. Thereafter, he asked appellant/complainant to receive payment on 13.5.2009.
In complaint, it has been stated by the appellant/ complainant that on 12.5.2009, respondent/opposite party no.5 informed appellant/complaint that the amount available in the post office is not sufficient to make his payment and asked him to come to post office on 20.5.2009 for receiving payment. Again on 19.5.2009 brother-in-law of respondent/ opposite party no.5 informed appellant/complainant not to go to post office on 20.5.2009 for receiving payment because the amount payable to appellant/complainant has been lost from Dikki of scooter of respondent/opposite party no.5. However, complainant went to post office of respondent/ opposite party no.3 on 20.5.2009 to receive payment where he was informed by respondent/opposite party no.4 that on 25.4.2009 a new account had been opened in his name and the maturity amount of his Vikas Patras which is Rs.4,84,000.00 have been withdrawn through this account.
In complaint, it has been stated by the appellant/ complainant that he immediately made complaint to officers of post office and police. Thereafter, respondent/opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 14.10.2009 admitted that maturity amount of his Kisan Vikas Patras have been received by respondent/opposite party no.5. The matter is being investigated.
(4)
In complaint, it has been stated by the appellant/ complainant that fraudulent withdrawal of maturity amount of his Kisan Vikas Patras is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of respondents/opposite parties. Consequently, appellant/complainant has filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance.
Before District Consumer Forum, respondents/opposite parties no.1 &2 have filed joint written statement wherein it has been staged that maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras of appellant/complainant mentioned in paragraph 14 of written statement have been withdrawn through bank account no.7450838.
In written statement, respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 2 have stated that respondent/opposite party no.5 was posted in the post office of respondent/opposite party no.3 as Additional Departmental Packer. He was not posted as Assistant Post Master.
In written statement, it has been stated that every employee is liable for his own acts. Opposite parties no.1 & 2 are not liable for the acts of respondent/opposite party no.5.
In written statement filed by respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 2, it has been stated that the new account no.7450838 was opened in the post office and specimen signatures made by complainant in signature register are similar to signature of appellant/ complainant.
In written statement filed by respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 2, it has been stated that there is no deficiency in their services. Appellant/complainant has handover SB-7 for withdrawal to respondent/opposite party no.5 after having
(5)
signed it. Therefore, he himself has committed negligence for which respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 2 can not be held liable.
In written statement filed by respondents/opposite parties no.1 & 2, it has been stated that they have been falsely impleaded in the complaint. No cause of action has arisen for filing complaint against them.
Respondent/opposite party no.5 has also filed written statement before the District Consumer Forum wherein he has stated that he was posted at branch post office, Banda as packer. He has no concern with preparation and payment of Kisan Vikas Patras. False allegations have been leveled against him. He has further stated that appellant/complainant himself has opened account and has received payment.
Respondent/opposite party no.4 has also filed written statement before District Consumer Forum wherein he has stated that on 25.4.2009 appellant/complainant has come to post office and asked him for payment of Kisan Vikas Patras. He opened a new account after necessary formalities in post office because cash payment of maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras is prohibited. He has further stated that the appellant/complainant has withdrawn the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras after having opened new account in post office. He has received payment and has acknowledged by making signature.
Perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum shows that respondent/opposite party no.3 did not file written statement and case was proceeded exparte against him.
(6)
After having gone through pleadings of parties as well as evidence on record, the District Forum is of the view that respondent/opposite party no.5 has committed breach of trust and criminal case is pending against him. But there is no deficiency in service of post office.
In view of above, District Forum has dismissed complaint vide impugned judgment and order.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as evidence. Complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act for redressal of grievance arising out of deficiency of service committed by respondents.
It has been further contended by ld. counsel for the appellant that respondent no.5 was working in the post office under subordination of respondents no.1, 2, 3 & 4. Therefore, Respondents no.1, 2, 3 & 4 are responsible for the act of respondent no.5 on the basis of vicarious liability.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the appellant that appeal should be allowed and respondents/opposite parties should be ordered to pay maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras of appellant/complainant with interest.
Ld. Counsel for respondents has opposed appeal and submitted that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence. Appellant/complainant has himself withdrawn maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras after having opened a new account in the post office. He has not denied his signatures on withdrawal forms and other relevant papers. There is no deficiency in service of post office.
(7)
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for respondents that criminal case is pending against respondent no.5 for cheating, fraud and misappropriation allegedly committed by respondent no.5. Charges leveled against respondent no.5 can not be adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act. District Forum has rightly dismissed complaint.
Ld. Counsel for respondents has referred following judicial pronouncements.
- Ganga Nagar Central Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rani & anr., II(2008) CPJ 19 (SC).
- Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr., II(2014)CPJ 196 (NC).
- Panna Lal Kankaria & sons vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., II(2015) CPJ 705 NC.
I have considered the submission made by ld. Counsel for the parties.
In the case of Geeta Jethani & ors vs. Airport Authority of India & ors., III(2004) CPJ 106 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has held that the pendency of criminal case is no ground to dismiss complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. (supra) Hon’ble National Commission has held that the allegation of fraud and cheating cannot be adjudicated by Consumer Forum.
Appellant has filed copy of letter dated 3.11.2020 sent by office of Post Master General, Lucknow to Additional P.A. of State Minister wherein it has been admitted that the maturity amount of Kisan Vikas Patras of appellant has been received by respondent/opposite party no.5. In this letter, it
(8)
has also been mentioned that the respondent/opposite party no.5 has been put off duty and the respondent/opposite party no.4 has been suspended.
Perusal of written statement filed by respondent/ opposite parties no.1, 2, 4 & 5 shows that there is no averment to the effect that in withdrawl form S.B.-7 respondent/opposite party no.5 was authorized to receive payment. Payment made to respondent/opposite party no.5 without valid authority may be a deficiency in service of Post Office.
In present complaint deficiency in service of respondents is to be adjudicated. In present complaint the issue for adjudication is as to whether the amount of Kisan Vikas Patras has been received by respondent/opposite party no.5 due to deficiency of post office. All the remaining respondents/opposite parties may be held liable on the basis of vicarious liability for the said deficiency.
Above letter dated 3.11.2020 sent by office of Post Master General, Lucknow to Additional P.A. of departmental State Minister has not been considered by District Forum. Further, the District Forum has not considered above aspect of deficiency in service of respondents.
In view of above, it appears just to remand the case to District Forum to pass fresh judgment and order in the light of discussion made above after opportunity of evidence and hearing to both parties.
For reasons recorded above, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to District Forum to pass
(9)
fresh judgment and order in the light of discussions made above after opportunity of evidence and hearing to both parties.
Both parties shall appear before District Forum, Banda on 11.12.2019. District Forum, Banda shall pass fresh judgment and order as directed above within 3 months from the above date of appearance.
In appeal both parties shall bear their own costs.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)
President
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
