State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintendent Of Posts & Telegraph ... vs Bhagat Ram And Others on 23 January, 2024
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.807 of 2022
Date of Institution : 20.09.2022
Reserved on : 15.12.2023
Date of Decision : 23.01.2024
1. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, R/o General Post Office,
Court Road, Amritsar.
2. Mukhtiar Singh, Clerk C/o Superintendent of Post, R/o General
Post Office, Court Road, Amritsar.
........Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&2
Versus
1. Bhagat Ram son of Sh. Makhan Chand.
2. Gurbachan Kaur wife of Sh. Bhagat Ram, both residents of
House No.3246-C, Gobindpura, Post Office Rayon & Silk Mill,
Amritsar.
.....Respondents No.1&2/Complainants
3. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Saab Ram Arora, Gali Lakhanpal
Councilor Wali, Chheharta, Amritsar 143105.
4. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Chandi Ram, R/o Gali No.6, Prabhaker
School Lane, Bhalla Colony, Chheharta, Amritsar 143105.
.....Respondents No.1&2/Opposite Parties No.3&4
Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the
order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Amritsar in C.C. No.326 of
2022.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
2 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 Present:-
For the Appellants : Sh. Arihant Goyal, Advocate For Respondent No.1&2 : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.3&4 : None
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The Appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 have filed the present Appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 read with Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as amended upto date (in short the 'Act'), being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar in C.C. No.326 of 2022, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant had been allowed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission are that both the Complainants had purchased Kisan Vikas Patra Certificates from OPs No.1 (Sr. Superintendent of Posts & Telegraphs Office, Amritsar), through small saving agent Ramesh Kumar Chug, for a sum of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.28 BC265627 to 265630 having value to the tune of Rs.5000/- each and further bearing No.98 AA 689293 to 689297 having value to the tune of Rs.1000/- each and bearing No.69602 dated 27.03.2002 and further 3 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 bearing No.28 BC 265623 having value to the tune of Rs.5000/- each and bearing No.98 AA 689288 to 689292 with value to the tune of Rs.1000/- each having registered No.69603 dated 27.03.2002. It was further mentioned that on 27.11.2009, the Complainant had approached said Ramesh Kumar Chugh and handed over the said KVPs for getting payment from OPs No.1 and 2. Said Ramesh Kumar Chugh had deposited the KVPs with OP No.2. Further it was mentioned that the maturity amount of said KVPs was Rs.1,00,000/- and the office bearer Ramesh Kumar Chugh was asked to get the same after a period of two days. Complainant No.1 alongwith agent had approached OP No.2 to get the maturity amount but he had delayed the payment on one ground or the other. The Complainant had visited the office of the OPs to get his maturity amount but it was put off on one pretext or the other. The Complainant alongwith his agent approached the officials of OPs and requested to look into the matter and thereafter, he came to know that his amount had been embezzled by OP No.2 in connivance with some officials as the amount had already paid to one Vijay Kumar not to the Complainants. The letter was sent to OP No.1 in this regard and thereafter reminders were also sent. The Complainants being the illiterate persons were not aware about the outcome of his documents and inspite of making inquiry, no result was there. It was further mentioned that total maturity amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and no amount more than Rs.20,000/- could have been paid in cash. The Complaint was filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to 4 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 release the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum and further prayer was made for issuance of directions to the Commissioner of Police to register a criminal case of embezzlement against OP No.2 and other officials involved therein and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs1,00,000/- for causing mental pain and agony to the Complainants and also for 'deficiency in service'.
3. Notice was issued in said Complaint and thereafter on hearing Counsel representing both the parties, said Complaint was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2012 stating therein that there was no 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs in paying the amount of KVPs to the person authorized by the respondents. Further it was held that in case there were allegations of fraud as alleged/committed by the said persons, the Complainants could have moved to Civil Court for dealing with the allegations of fraud so committed.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the District Commission, the Complainants had filed Appeal before this Commission which was allowed by issuing directions to pay full maturity amount of KVPs of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 27.11.2009 till it was paid and also the compensation of Rs.15,000/- alongwith cost of litigation of Rs.7000/-. Thereafter, a Revision Petition was filed by the present appellants/OPs before the Hon'ble National Commission to challenge the order passed by this Commission. Said Revision Petition was 5 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 remanded with the observation to the District Commission to implead Vijay Kumar and Ramesh Kumar as parties in the Consumer Complaint. Further it was observed that the District Commission would also issue notices to the newly impleaded parties and the Complaint be decided after giving adequate opportunity to them by taking on record the written version and evidence, if any, filed by them. After impleading said persons as OPs No.3 and 4 in the Complaint, the OPs had filed separate written replies.
5. In response to the notice issued to OP No.1, OP No.1 had mentioned in the reply that the Investor Bhagat Ram had not personally attended the office and had entrusted the KVPs to one Ramesh Kumar Chugh, Small Saving Agent, with his Authority Letter. Said person had also sent one of his office assistant namely Vijay Kumar for receiving the amount to whom the clerk of OPs had handed over an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. Said Vijay Kumar had further handed over the said amount to one Sukhwinder Singh @ Happy, the office assistant of Ramesh Kumar, the Small Saving Agent. Thereafter, OPs No.1 and 2 had entrusted the inquiry of non- receipt of said amount to SP, Headquarter, Amritsar wherein it was found in the inquiry that said Vijay Kumar had handed over the amount to one office assistant of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, the Small Saving Agent. Complainant Bhagat Ram had never visited the office of the OPs for collecting the amount but he had submitted his authority letter duly signed by him with the office rubber stamp of the Small Saving Agent namely Ramesh Kumar Chugh, who had further 6 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 authorized Sh. Vijay Kumar to receive the amount on his behalf from the OPs. Further it was mentioned that the maturity amount had rightly been given to Sh. Vijay Kumar. The other averments made in the Complaint were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the Complaint.
6. Similarly, OP No.2 had filed the written version wherein it was mentioned that the certificates initially issued from Amritsar Head Office on 27.03.2002 was in the name of Krishna Rani and Ashok Kumar and Krishan Rani and Manoj Kumar and not in the name of Complainant No.1 Bhagat Ram. It was also mentioned that OP No.2, Clerk had paid the amount on the same day after presentation of the KVPs. Further, it was denied that Ramesh Kumar Chug, Agent had ever visited the Head Post Office for tendering KVPs. Sh. Vijay Kumar employee was authorized by Ramesh Kumar Chugh to collect the amount of KVPs to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and an affidavit to this effect was also filed by said Vijay Kumar. Further it was submitted that Vijay Kumar was having authority letter from the Complainants and had approached the Senior Officials of Head Post Office for paying the amount in cash in respect of KVPs in dispute as one of the family members of the Complainants was hospitalized and they were in need of money. Further it was denied that the amount to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- had been embezzled by OP No.2. Other allegations as made in the Complaint were specifically denied and it was prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
7First Appeal No.807 of 2022
7. OP No.3, subsequently impleaded as party, had also filed written version wherein it was stated that it was not an act of negligence and 'deficiency in service' against the answering OPs as he had received the amount on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Chug and had further handed over to his office clerk Sukhwinder @ Happy and the same was acknowledged by said Ramesh Kumar Chugh.
8. OP No.4 had denied all the allegations as leveled against him in the Complaint. Further he had denied that Vijay Kumar was authorized to collect the amount on behalf of the Complainant from OPs No.1 and 2. He had also affirmed that the amount more than Rs.20,000/- was not to be paid in cash.
9. Complainant No.1 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 6.5.2010 Ex.C-2, letter dated 14.7.2010 Ex.C-3, letter dated 18.10.2010 Ex.C-4, letter dated 8.11.2010 Ex.C-5, letter dated 10.11.2010 Ex.C-6, letter dated 15.11.2010 Ex.C-7, letter dated 19.11.2010 Ex.C-8, copy of affidavit of Complainant No.1 Ex.C-9, affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chug Ex.C-10.
10. OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Thakur Dutt Sharma, Sr. Supdt. of post Ex.RW1/A, copy of authority letter Ex.R-2, copies of KVPs of the denomination of Rs.5000/- Ex.R-3 to R-6, copies of KVPs of the denomination of Rs.1000/- Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11, copies of letters Ex.R-12 and R-13 authority letter Ex. R-14, copies of KVPs of the denomination of 8 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 Rs.5000/- Ex.R-15 to Ex.R-18, copies of KVPs of the denomination of Rs.1000/- Ex.R-19 to Ex.R23, copy of letters Ex.R-24 and Ex.R-25, copy of affidavit of Bhagat Ram Ex.R-26, copy of undertaking Ex.R-27, statement of Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex.R-28, statement of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Ex.R-29, statement of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Small Saving Agent Ex.R-30, copy of receipt Ex.R-31, copy of letter regarding non-receipt of payment of KVPs Ex.R-32 and R-33, affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex.RW4/A, copies of authority letters Ex.R-34 to R-36, affidavit of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh Ex.RW3/A and affidavit of Vijay Kumar Ex.R-37.
11. OP No.2 tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.RW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex.R-1.
12. OP No.3 alongwith written version has filed his affidavit Ex.OP3/1.
13. After hearing the oral arguments and going through the contents of Complaint, replies thereof and evidence, the Complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide order dated 15.07.2022. The relevant portion of the said order dated 15.07.2022 in para No.15 & 16 are reproduced as under:-
"15. This Commission has given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case and is of the considered view that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have violated rules/guidelines /directions issued by the authorities by providing maturity amount above Rs. 20000/- in cash. Furthermore the institution such like post office and banks should act for the welfare of the 9 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 public for which they are meant for, as the general public put utmost faith on these institutions keeping in mind that their hard earned money is secured and in safe hands and if these institutions act in negligent manner, then they should not be spared for their negligent act. Furthermore, why the consumers be suffered for the lapse of the officials of the institutions like post office. Since this Commission found opposite party No.1 as guilty of deficiency in service, hence we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. the amount which was payable to Complainant on maturity of KVPs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of the KVPs till its realization . In the present case the conduct of the opposite parties is so callous which compelled the Complainant to knock the door of this Commission, hence, the opposite party is liable to pay exemplary compensation to meet the ends of justice. This Commission relied upon the latest law on this point of compensation i.e. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Amitabha Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and others AIR 2021 SC (Civil) 1457 wherein it has been held that "Deficiency in service- Duty of care should be exercised by bank irrespective of application of laws of bailment to contents of locker- Bank inadvertently broke customer's locker, without giving prior notice, inspite of clearing pending dues by him- Bank acted in blatant disregard to responsibilities owned to customer as service provider- Case of gross deficiency in service- Imposition of costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on bank, would be appropriate compensation to customer." Since there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 for not disbursing this amount within time on one pretext or the other to the Complainant, hence Complainant is certainly entitled to compensation, as such opposite party No.1 is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for their negligent act. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses of 10 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 Rs. 5000/- to the Complainant This Commission relied upon judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Lukhnow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1994(1)Supreme Court Cases 243 wherein it has been held that in the eventuality when compensation is slapped due to deficiency in service at the part of the public authority, then this amount of compensation should not be burdened on Govt. exchequer since that exchequer is maintained by the collection of public taxes from the general public . Relevant extract of para 11 of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
"When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers's money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a Complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the Complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries."
16. In view of the law cited supra, the opposite party No.1 is at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the officials/officers who found guilty and negligent while working of its official duties by conducting an enquiry in this regard. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which Complainant shall be entitled to get 11 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 the order executed through the indulgence of this commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission.
14. Being aggrieved by said order dated 15.07.2022, the appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 have filed the present Appeal by raising a number of grounds in the Appeal.
15. Mr. Arihant Goyal Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 has vehemently argued that the District Commission had failed to consider the version of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 (Vijay Kumar) had admitted that he had taken amount from the Post Office on the basis of authorization letter and it was given by the office clerk to one Vijay Kumar in good faith as the Complainants were in need of money due to medical emergency in his family and it was done under the good faith and as such the authority letter so given cannot said to be a case of negligence on the part of the Appellants/OPs No.1 and 2. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had failed to consider a material fact that the KVPs of different denominations like Rs.5000/-, Rs.1000/- etc. were issued in name of both the Complainants and the amount against them were taken by Vijay Kumar (Respondent No.3). The different denominations of KVPs hold the different entities and it was not a case of single transaction as it could not be taken in a single transaction being the amount more than Rs.20,000/- as the denominations of KVPs were of Rs.5000/-, Rs.1000/-, etc. Learned 12 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 Counsel has further submitted that the Hon'ble National Commission had remanded the case with the direction that a clear picture of evidence and facts be brought to the notice of District Commission with regard to the transactions and also clear status of the case. After considering the reply filed by OPs No.3 and 4, it has been proved on record that there was no case of any 'deficiency in service' on the part of the Appellants/OPs as the 'deficiency in service' was on the part of OPs No.3 and 4 only which can be seen from the evidence available on record as OP No.3 had clearly stated that he had received the amount on behalf of OP No.4 and it was given to the clerk-cum-cashier of OP No.4 i.e. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Chugh (agent). Learned Counsel has further submitted that the District Commission had also failed to consider a material fact that it was not a case of any 'deficiency in service' on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 and the present dispute in hand is a clear cut case of criminal nature and embezzlement of amount by OPs No.3 and 4 which can be decided and proved only before the Criminal Court as there are allegations of fraud and embezzlement. The District Commission had failed to consider that there were allegations of embezzlement and fraud and ample evidence was available on the record as adduced by the appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 and also to show that respondents No.1 and 2 had given the authority letter to Ramesh Kumar Chugh (agent) and further the authority letter was given to Vijay Kumar Clerk to receive the amount from the Post Office but later on the Complainants had alleged that they had not received the amount from Vijay Kumar or 13 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 even from Ramesh Kumar Chugh (agent) who were the family friends of the Complainants as has been mentioned in the Complaint itself. These facts are required to be elaborated by way of evidence and cross-examination and are not possible before the Consumer Fora as it is required to be relegated to the Civil Court as stated by the District Commission. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The District Commission has also failed to consider and appreciate the settled preposition of law and the judgments as cited. The impugned order is also liable to be set aside as there are disputed question of law and facts as involved in the case and Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and the matter be relegated to the Civil Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon following judgments in support of his arguments :
(i) M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Limited Vs. United Commercial Bank, 1992 (3)(NC)-50,
(ii) Prahlad Sharma Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., 2012 (2) CPJ (NC) 498, decided on 24.04.2012,
(iii) Bhagwanji D. Patel Vs. India Bank, 2011(3) CPJ (NC) 175, decided on 06.05.2011 At the end, learned Counsel has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission be set aside by taking into consideration the grounds as raised in the Appeal as the same have not been taken into consideration by the District Commission.14 First Appeal No.807 of 2022
16. Mr. Sukhandeep Singh Advocate, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/Complainants has submitted that the order passed by the District Commission does not suffer from any infirmity and the order is well reasoned and is liable to be upheld. Learned Counsel has further submitted that it has been proved on record that the Respondents/Complainants had purchased KVPs Certificate on 27.03.2002 but after its maturity, they did not receive the maturity amount which was released by the OPs in cash without any verification and such the amount had been embezzled. It was clear cut case of 'deficiency in service' as well as 'unfair trade practice' for which the District Commission had already awarded damages in favour of the Complainant.
Further it has been submitted that no document or any other record was produced on record by the Postal Department to show as to how the amount of maturity and denominations was paid to Vijay Kumar. Even no authority given to Mukhtiar Singh OP No.2 had been placed on record. It is well settled law that the statutory instructions issued by the Government of India and also by the Income Tax Department to this effect that no amount more than Rs.20,000/- can be given to anybody in lieu of any maturity amount of any financial transaction in cash but it was given in cash and that too without any authority. The District Commission has also rightly held that the Postal Department had not acted with proper diligence and had also failed to explain as to under what circumstances 15 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 Vijay Kumar was given Rs.1,00,000/- in cash by OP No.2. The District Commission had rightly appreciated the documents/evidence available on the file and had passed self speaking order and as such no interference is required. A detailed finding has been recorded by considering the documents available on the file including the documents as produced by both the parties as such no interference is required.
17. None has appeared on behalf of OPs No.3 and 4.
18. We have heard the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the documents available on the record with the assistance of both the Counsel representing the appellants/OPs No.1 & 2 and respondents No.1 and 2/Complainants.
19. Facts relating to filing of Complaint by the Complainants, reply thereof filed by the OPs before the District Commission and passing of the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the District Commission and thereafter filing of Appeal before this Commission being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Commission which was allowed and thereafter filing of Revision Petition by the appellant/OPs No.1 and 2 before the Hon'ble National Commission and also the remand of case to the District Commission with certain directions are not in dispute.
20. Admittedly, as per the version of OP No.1, an authority was given by the Complainants to Ramesh Kumar Chugh (agent), who had further authorized his official Vijay Kumar to collect the 16 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 amount of KVPs on the date of maturity from the Post Office. Admittedly, the Complainants had purchased KVPs from OP No.1 through agent namely Ramesh Kumar Chugh for an amount of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.28 BC265627 to 265630 having value to the tune of Rs.5000/- each and further bearing No.98 AA 689293 to 689297 having value to the tune of Rs.1000/- each and bearing No.69602 dated 27.03.2002 and further bearing No.28 BC 265623 having value to the tune of Rs.5000/- each and bearing No.98 AA 689288 to 689292 with value to the tune of Rs.1000/- each having registered No.69603 dated 27.03.2002. The Complainants had handed over the said KVPs to agent namely Ramesh Kumar Chugh for getting the amount from OPs No.1 and 2. Subsequently it came to the notice of the Complainants that the maturity amount was given to Vijay Kumar instead of Complainants. As per the version of OP No.1, the Complainants authorized Ramesh Kumar Chug the agent by giving him authority letter but he further sent his office assistant Vijay Kumar for receiving the amount to whom the Clerk of OP No.1 had handed over the amount in cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the version of said Vijay Kumar, he had further handed over the amount to one Sukhwinder Singh @ Happy, the office assistant of agent Ramesh Kumar Chug. Undisputedly, OPs No.1 and 2 had entrusted the inquiry of non-receipt of said amount to SP Headquarter, Amritsar and in the inquiry report it was found that Vijay Kumar had handed over the amount to one office assistant of Ramesh Kumar Chugh, the agent. It was also submitted that the Complainant had never visited 17 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 OPs No.1 and 2 for receiving the amount. He had submitted that authority letter was duly signed by the Complainants. Small saving agent namely Ramesh Kumar Chugh had further authorized Vijay Kumar to receive the amount on his behalf from OPs No.1 and 2. As per the findings in the inquiry, the maturity amount was given to Vijay Kumar. As per the version of OP No.2, he had paid the amount on the same day after presentation of KVPs. However, Ramesh Kumar Chugh had visited the Head Post Office for tendering KVPs. It was submitted that Vijay Kumar, the employee of Ramesh Kumar Chug, who was authorized had collected the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. An affidavit has been filed by Vijay Kumar stating that he was having authority letter from the Complainant and had approached Senior Official of Head Post Office for getting the amount in cash in respect of KVPs as one of the family members of the Complainants was hospitalized and there was a need of money. It had been denied that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had been embezzled by OP No.2.
21. OP No.3 Vijay Kumar had also filed written version stating therein that it was not an act of negligence and 'deficiency in service' as OP No.3 had already received the amount on behalf of Ramesh Kumar Chugh and had handed over to his office clerk namely Sukhwinder Singh @ Happy and it was also acknowledged by said Ramesh Kumar Chugh. OP No.4 has denied all the allegations leveled against him. He had also denied the allegations regarding receiving KVPs certificate. He had also submitted that he 18 First Appeal No.807 of 2022 had gone to OP No.2 to collect the maturity amount but the amount was not paid.
22. No documents or any authority has been placed on record by the OPs No.1 and 2 to show as to how the amount of maturity was given to Vijay Kumar without verifying the genuineness of authority letter and also when the amount was more than Rs.20,000/-. As per the affidavit of Mukhtiar Singh, OP No.2, the window clerk of the Post Office, some higher officials of the Postal Department had given him authority to pay the amount in cash to Vijay Kumar but no such authority was given by the Higher Authority to Mukhtiar Singh as nothing was placed on record. It is not in dispute that as per the statutory instructions issued by the Government of India and also by the Income Tax Department, no payment above Rs.20,000/- could be paid in cash in lieu of any maturity amount of any financial transactions in cash. In case it is done so, then it would be in violation of the Rules. Meaning thereby, the Appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 had not acted as per the Rules and due diligence and even had not followed the instructions regarding not paying the amount more than Rs.20,000/- in cash. It has not been proved on record as under what circumstances said Vijay Kumar had received the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from the Postal Department. Moreover no receipt was produced by the Postal Department even for giving the amount to Vijay Kumar.
19First Appeal No.807 of 2022
23. Admittedly, it is a case of total negligence at the instance of Postal Authorities and the District Commission has found OPs No.1 'deficient in service' and has rightly directed OP No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was to be paid to the Complainant on the date of maturity of KVPs alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of maturity till its realization. The District Commission has rightly relied upon the judgment as referred above. The judgments relied upon by the Appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The District Commission has granted liberty to OP No.1 to recover the awarded amount from the officials/officers who found guilty and negligent while working of its official duties by conducting an enquiry in this regard.
24. In view of detailed discussion as referred above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellants/OPs No.1 and 2 and the Appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
25. The Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the Appeal with this Commission and further deposited an amount of Rs.82,513/- on 14.10.2022. Said amounts, alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The Respondents No.1 and 2/Complainants may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. 20 First Appeal No.807 of 2022
26. Since the main case is decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
27. The Appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER January 23, 2024 (MM)