Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/332

Smt.Gurmail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Kalsy Adv.

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 332 of 19.05.2015

Date of Decision          :   24.01.2017

 

1.Smt.Gurmail Kaur, aged about 75 years wife of Sh.Gurbaksh Singh.

2.Davinder Singh, aged about 42 years, son of Sh.Gurbaksh Singh.

  Both residents of H.No.1328 (1328/5) (old) 1862 (New), Maharaj Nagar, Wazir Singh Road, Opp. Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

 

1.Union of India, through Union Secretary, Department of Post and Telegraphs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2.The Chief Post Master General (Punjab Circle), Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3.The Head Post Master, Main Post Office, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

4.The Post Master, Sarabha Nagar Post Office, Ludhiana.

5.The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, City Division, Ludhiana.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant              :       Sh.A.K.Kalsy, Advocate

For OPs                           :       Sh.Ankur Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainants were holding joint saving account No.1892470 w.e.f.18.10.1989. That account was transferred to Post Office Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana because Gurdev Nagar Post Office was closed. All the business and other activity of the post office of Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana was transferred to Sarabha Nagar Post Office, Ludhiana. Both the complainants are poor persons. Complainant no.2 is earning by doing odd jobs, whereas, complainant no.1 is old  ailing and illiterate senior citizen. Complainants had been depositing money in   the said account after saving the same by starving. Complainants in the month of June 2013, first got knowledge that an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been withdrawn by some stranger. However, the complainants never withdrew the money from that account. After getting the knowledge of withdrawal by some stranger, complainants immediately on 14.6.2013 filed complaint with OP5 regarding the above said withdrawal. Request for holding enquiry was submitted. Thereafter, request made for correcting the entry by crediting the said amount in the saving account. Despite filing of number of applications with the concerned authorities, no action has been taken. OP5 vide letter sent in the year 2014 supplied photostat copy of the withdrawal form vide which, the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- has been withdrawan by some stranger illegally. After receipt of the same, it was found that form is thumb marked by someone and not by the complainant no.1. Even complainant no.2 had not signed the said withdrawal form. After that meager amount of Rs.1587.65P was withdrawn. Loss was caused to the complainant because they were deprived of their heard earned money. Above   said act and conduct of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and even the same is an unfair trade practice. Lastly, Ops refused to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Directions sought for refund of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @24% per annum. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and frivolous; complainant has suppressed the true facts from this Forum; question of fraud involving serious allegations cannot be decided in summary proceedings because the same can be decided by competent Court of civil and criminal jurisdiction and complainant has no cause of action. Admittedly, the complainant no.1 Gurmeet Kaur opened saving bank account No.1892470 at Gurdev Nagar Post Office on 18.10.1989 and transactions were used to be made through that account. Withdrawal of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the said account took place on 6.7.2006, when account was at Gurdev Nagar Post Office. No objection was raised by any of the complainants at that time. Even complainants have been making transactions in their saving bank account thereafter. Gurdev Nagar Post Office was closed on 15.5.2010 and its work merged with Sarabha Nagar Post Office, Ludhiana. So, a new account number was allotted to the complainant. Complainants alleged about the fraudulent transaction for the first time on 14.6.2013 i.e. after more than 7 years. Account of the complainant was never dormant. Complainants has been making deposits and withdrawing the amounts from the said account. As per procedure followed by the Post office, the passbook has to be presented at the counter by the account holder for affecting transactions. On 6.7.2006, passbook was presented along with withdrawal voucher for withdrawing sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the saving bank account by the complainant. That entry was duly reflected in the passbook. There was no illegal withdrawal by the third party and nor any illegal act done by the department of Post Office or any of its employees. Complainant demanded withdrawal voucher of 6.7.2006 and the same was immediately provided by the Senior Post Master, Ludhiana. There was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Each and every other allegation of the complaint denied.

3                  Counsel for complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Smt.Gurmail Kaur as Ex.CA along with document Ex.C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Suresh Kumar, Superintendent of Post Office, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Application for examining the handwriting and finger prints expert by way of additional evidence filed by complainant was dismissed vide orders dated 10.1.2017.

7.                 Complainant no.1 Smt.Gurmail Kaur herself has produced on record copy of passbook Ex.C1=Ex.R5. Perusal of Ex.C1=Ex.R5 reveals that entry of withdrawal of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from joint account of the complainants was incorporated on 6.7.2006 and thereafter, left out balance shown as Rs.1587.65P. Subsequent entries of dates of 1.1.2008.16.2.2010, 12.3.2011, 4.4.2011, 28.6.2011, 21.7.2011, 3.10.2011, 14.10.2011, 21.10.2011, 3.11.2011 and 5.11.2011 were incorporated in this passbook Ex.C1=Ex.R5. The amounts deposited along with balance left out mentioned against entries of above referred dates. Passbook bound to remain in possession of the account holder i.e. complainants. So, in view of conduct of large number of transactions after the alleged fraudulent transaction of 6.7.2006, there remains no doubt that actually the complainants or any of them have been going through the entries of transaction conducted subsequent to 6.7.2006. If that be the position, then submissions advanced by counsel for the Ops has force that the alleged fraud was bound to come in the knowledge of the complainant on incorporation of subsequent entry of 1.1.2008. Through that entry of 1.1.2008, amount of Rs.11,000/- was deposited and balance left out shown as Rs.12,587/-. The disputed amount was withdrawn by the complainant no.1 by filling the withdrawal form Ex.R2. Complainant no.1 was identified by one Parvesh Kumar, whose signatures are there on this withdrawal form Ex.R2. Thumb mark of the complainant no.1 Gurmeet Kaur also there on this withdrawal form Ex.R2. So, this documentary evidence establishes beyond doubt that officials of Ops permitted complainant no.1 Gurmeet Kaur to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 6.7.2006 after full satisfaction of identity of complainant no.1. When such precaution was taken by the Ops and thereafter, entry in current Roznamacha Ex.R3 was incorporated along with entry in Ledger Ex.R4, then certainly this circumstance lean in favour of holding that actually amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant no.1 Gurmeet Kaur herself on 6.7.2006 and that is why, she did not raise objection qua the alleged fraudulent withdrawal until filing of application Ex.R1 with SSP City Division, Ludhiana. So, submissions advanced by counsel for Ops has force that owing to complainants remained mum for 7 years after such withdrawal, the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands.

8.                 If really, the fraudulent transaction in question would have been entered illegally, then complainants or any of them would have raised       objection qua such fraudulent transaction immediately on 1.1.2008 or 16.2.2010, when subsequent two transactions took place by way of incorporation of entries in Ex.C1=Ex.R5. It is so because it is expected from a man of ordinary prudence to raise objection of fraudulent entry immediately after going through the contents of passbook entries. Non raising of such objection for 7 years by the complainant leads to the only irresistible conclusion that due withdrawal from the account of the complainant took place.

9.                 Even if complainant no.1 may have put thumb impression, but complainant no.2 had signed on the complaint as well as on the affidavit in Punjabi language and as such, it cannot be held that both complainants are illiterate. Rather, signatures of complainant no.2 Davinder Singh on complaint, affidavit and on Vakalatnama are put in such a way as if those are put by a literate person having neat and clean handwriting.

10.     After lodging application Ex.R1 filed by the complainant no.2 Davinder Singh with Police, enquiry into the matter to be conducted by the police through investigation. As and when, question of fraud is involved, then same cannot be gone into in the summary proceedings before this Forum because such complicated question can be gone into by the Civil Court or Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance for the purpose can be placed on law laid down in cases of P.N.Khanna vs. Bank of India-II(2015)CPJ-54(N.C.); Bright Transport Company vs. Sangli Sehkari Bank Ltd.,II(2012)CPJ-151(N.C.); Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mani Mahesh Patel-VI(2006)SLT-436=2006(2)CPC-668(S.C.); Reliance Industries Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited-I(1998)CPJ-13(N.C.); M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Limited vs. United Commercial Bank-III(1992)CPJ-50(N.C.); Sangli Ram vs. General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited-II(1994)CPJ-444; Harbans and company vs. State Bank of India-II(1994)CPJ-456; Ranju Devi vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India-2015(4)CLT-131(JHK).

11.       From the facts and circumstances as discussed above, present case cannot be termed as a case of fraud, but of voluntary withdrawal and as such, we do not find any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

12.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.               File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                       (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                          (G.K.Dhir)

                                  Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.