State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Snior Post Master, Serampore Head ... vs Sri Jayanta Goswami & Two Ors. on 22 November, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO FA/67/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 18/01/2012 in Case No.119/2009 of District Hooghly, Hooghly DF, Chinsurah) DATE OF FILING : 16.02.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 22.11013 APPELLANTS : 1. Sri Jayanta Goswami, Son of Sri Gobinda Prasad Goswami, 2. Smt. Durga Goswami, Wife of Sri Jayanta Goswami, Residing at 13/J, Chatra Lahiri Para Lane, P.O.-Chatra. P.S. Serampore, Dist.-Hooghly RESPONDENTS : 1.The Post Master General, Yogayog Bhawan, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata 700 072 2. The Senior Post Master, Serampore Head Post Office, P.O. and P.S. Serampore, District Hooghly 2. Smt. Minati Bhattacharjee, Wife of Late Narayan Chandra Bhattacarjee, Residing at 5, Chakraborty Lane, P.O. & P.S.-Serampore, Dist-Hooghly. FOR THE APPELLANTS : 1. Mr. Satyajit Mahata, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 : 1. Ms. Ratna Brahamchari, Ld. Advocate And S.C. CASE NO FA/452/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 18/01/2012 in Case No.119/2009 of District Hooghly, Hooghly DF, Chinsurah) DATE OF FILING : 30.07.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 22.11.2013 APPELLANT : The Senior Post Master, Serampore Head Post Office, P.O. and P.S. Serampore, District Hooghly RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri Jayanta Goswami, 2. Smt. Durga Goswami, Wife of Sri Jayanta Goswami, Residing at 13/J, Chatra Lahiri Para Lane,P.O.-Chatra, P.S. Serampore, Dist.-Hooghly 3. Smt. Minati Bhattacharjee, Wife of Late Narayan Chandra Bhattacarjee, Residing at 5, Chakraborty Lane, P.O. & P.S.-Serampore, Dist-Hooghly. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Jaganatth Bag FOR THE APPELLANT : 1. Ms. Ratna Brahmachari, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 : 1. Mr. Sudhakar Thakur, Ld. Advocate ________________________________________________________________________ Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
Both these appeals have emanated from the same judgment and order dated 18/01/2012 in Case No. 119/2009 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly. By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case in part on contest against the OP No.1 and ex parte against the OP No.2 and directed the OP Nos. 1 & 2 to produce all the copies and documents in respect of the six MIS accounts of the petitioners along the Savings Account of the petitioners and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to the petitioners jointly and severally within one month from the date of the order, i.d., 9% interest will carry till full payment.
Being aggrieved by this judgment, the Complainants thereof have at first preferred FA/67/2012 and thereafter the OP No.1 along with others preferred FA/452/2012.
The case of the Complainants in their petition of complaint is that they opened six numbers of MIS in the year 2005 through the OP No.2, in the office of the OP No.1. Due to prolong and expensive treatment of their son, they decided to close all the six MIS before maturity and accordingly, on 10.07.2007, the Complainant No.1, as per instruction of the OPs, made an authorisation letter stating eagerness to close all the six MIS and to transfer the same in their Savings Account being No. 1276869 issued by the OP No.1 and authorized Souvik Bhttacharjee to collect the papers. The OP No.2 convinced the Complainants and took signature on the withdrawal slip of the Post Office and placed them for withdrawal of interest of MIS from the OP No.1. Thereafter, on 03.09.2007, the Complainants filed a written representation to the OP No.1 stating that OP No.2 is absconding and requested the OP No.1 not to allow the OP No.2 to withdraw any amount from his account. But, the OP No.1 reported that all the amounts of six MIS have been withdrawn on 11.07.2007, 12.07.2007, 13.07.2007, 14.07.2007 and 19.07.2007, amounting to Rs.44,000/- (Rupees fortyfour thousand), Rs.1,47,000/- (Rupees one lakh fortyseven thousand), Rs.1,14,000/- (Rupees one lakh forteen thousand), Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand), respectively, by Souvik Bhattacharjee and Biman Bhattacharjee. Thereafter, the Complainants reported the entire matter to I/C, Serampore P.S., which has been recorded as Serampore P.S. Case No. 163/2007 dated 03.09.2007. Lastly, the Complainants sent a letter to the OP No.1 on 17.09.2007, which was not replied. It became crystal clear to the Complainants that the OP No.1 with some of its dealing Staff in connivance with OP No.2 withdrew the entire amount within a short span of time, which clearly proves deficiency in service the same.
Denying the allegations made in the complaint, the case of the OP No.1, in the W.V., is that the OP No.2 was appointed in the year 1987 by the SDO, Serampore Sub-Division. As per letter dated 10.07.2007 of the Complainants, the OP No.1 transferred the available amount as per Postal Rule to the S.B. A/c after completing necessary formalities. The Complainants had withdrawn money using the Pass Book of the S.B. A/c through their authorized messenger. The concerned slips also contained signature of the messenger duly attested by the Complainants and other connected papers have been seized by the Police in connection with Serampore P.S. Case No.163/2007, which has not yet been finally disposed. Accordingly, they prayed for rejection of the case.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers any kind of anomaly as to law and facts so as to reverse the same.
Decision with reasons.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has made out before us that the Complainants have been cheated and frauded for the act of the Post Office. He has assailed the judgment as there is no whisper about the principal amount which be returned to the Complainants along interest and compensation. He has cited two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court, as reported in AIR 2004 SC 2141 and AIR 1994 SC 787.
Ld. Advocate for the Department of Posts has submitted that the application with allegation against the Agent, Mrs. Minati Bhattacharjee by the Complainant was made on 03.09.2007, and by that time all the monies in the matter have already been withdrawn, much prior to such information and/or communication, on the basis of authorisation given by the Complainants, and as such, no action could be taken on it. Further, on the self-same date he made an F.I.R. with Serampore P.S., which was registered as Serampore P.S. Case N. 163/07 dated 03.09.2007, u/s 406/420/34, I.P.C., but there is no allegation in it against the postal authority. In all such facts and circumstances, there is hardly any deficiency in service of the postal authority. It is also very difficult to comply with the direction of the Ld. District Forum, as made in the impugned judgment, as police has seized all those documents in connection with Serampore P.S. Case No. 163/07 dated 03.09.2007, u/s 406/420/34, I.P.C., and such criminal case is pending.
It is crystal clear that there has been default and perpetration of mischief by the postal officials that be in full connivance with the person(s) who withdrawn such huge money. Why the procedure of issuing a/c payee cheque in the name of the Complainants was not followed in each and every instance of withdrawals in this case? There is a clear-cut lapse on the part of such delinquent officials of the Indian Posts. The postal authority will be liable if no departmental action is taken against each and every officials engaged and involved in such surreptitious deals. It is found that the Ld. District Forum in its wisdom has found that, it appears from the documents that petitioners wanted to close all the six MIS before maturity due to prolong and expensive treatment of their son. It also appears that on 10.07.2009, the Petitioner No.1 as per instruction of the OPs made an authorization letter stating that they are eager to close down all the MIS mentioned in the petition and transfer the same in the Savings account vide account no. 1276869 issued by the OP No.1 and authorised Sri Souvik Bhattacharjee to collect papers regarding the six numbers of MIS on their behalf. From the records we do not find that the petitioner authorized Souvik Bhattacharjee to collect money lying as interest in the MIS account. It further appears that in spite of the letter to the OP no.1 the entire money lying in the Savings Bank account was withdrawn and in that respect we think that OP no.1 has some responsibility. The OP no.1 and 2 did not inform anything about the withdrawal of the entire money from their Savings Account to the petitioners in spite of request. But, it is found, that instead of passing a final order, an order in the interim nature has been passed by the impugned judgment. It cannot be taken as a final order disposing the case completely upon adjudication of all the concerned matters. Incidentally, the police case is also continuing and pending, though not much relevant to the facts of this case. Accordingly, it is deemed fit to remand the case to the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly for final adjudication of the matter and to pass a final order thereafter.
Hence, ORDERED that both FA/67/2012 and FA/452/2012 stand allowed against the respective Respondents, but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Ld. District Forum, Hooghly for passing a final order after proper adjudication.
The original judgment be kept in the record of FA/67/2012 and a photocopy of the same be kept in FA/452/2012.
MEMBER MEMBER