State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sub Post Master, Kumbalangi vs Suraj V.S., on 28 January, 2011
Daily Order
First Appeal No. 1097/2004 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District ) 1. The Sub Post Master Kumbalanghi,Cochin BEFORE: SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 1097/2004
JUDGMENT DATED. 28.1.2011
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANTS
1. The Sub Post Master,
Kumbalanghi, Cochin - 7
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Ernakulam Division, Cochin - 11
3. The Post Department
Rep. by the Post Master General,
Central Regions, Ernakulam,
Cochin - 16
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. M.P. Sasidharan Nair)
Vs
RESPONDENT
Suraj V.S.,
S/o Sughathan,Vallayil House,
Kumbalanghi South P.O.,
Cochin - 07.
(Rep. by Adv. N. Krishnaprasad & B.S. Sankarlal)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernamulam in O.P. No. 801/2003. The Appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant in the above case.
The appellants preferred this appeal under the order directed them to pay the respondent/complainant that the maturity value of the deposit amount based on the account shown in Ext. A1 Pass book of the complainant with interest from the date of which the complainant moved the opposite party for the maturity amount till the amount is paid at the rate applicable from that time to a Post office Savings Bank account till the payment of the account by the opposite party to the complainant, also to pay a cost of Rs. 500/- within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
In short, the complainant joined 5 years post office recurring deposit on 18.10.1998 and he was given a pass book with Account No. 7137552. The denomination of the deposit was Rs. 500/- per month and the duration was 16 months. The complainant remitted the installments without fail and the last installment was made on 2.9.2003 and total remittance was Rs. 30,000/- which was entered in the pass book. On maturity of the deposits, complainant approached the first opposite party for withdrawal of the amount. He was told that 14 installments during the period from October 2000 to December 2001, are not seeing recorded in the register maintained in the post office. But the pass book of the complainant contained the entries in respects of the deposit. The complainant was informed by the Post office that this was on account of the fraud committed by the agent, V.N. Sasikala, might not have remitted the installments. He was also informed that the entries in the pass book might be pages of another pass book. The refusal to pay the full maturity value is illegal and thereafter this complaint filed for a direction to the opposite party to meet the full maturity amount with interest and costs The opposite parties entered appearance and contented in their written version that the opening of the deposit in the name of the complainant has been admitted. The account was operated through V.N. Sasikala MPK. The complainant paid to the agent with installments up to December 2001. But when the complainant came to know of the fraud committed by the agent, he obtained the pass book from the agent and made subsequent deposit directly at the post office. When the complainant approached the post office for closing the account and the opposite party told that the deposit from October, 2000 to December 2001 collected by the agent were not actually credited to the Post office. The investigation done by the Asst. Superintendent of post office and referred the page 9 to 16 of the complainant was substituted pages from another pass book of Account No. 7137531. The deposits made directly by the complainant are properly accounted in the post office. The opposite parties are not liable for the fraud committed by the agent and there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The evidence consist of proof affidavit and the cross examination of the complainant by the opposite parties witness as Pw1. Pw2 is the mother of the complainant who was cross examined on her proof affidavit. Ext. A1 to A5 have been marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence but marked as Ext. B1 to B84. The opposite parties filed argument note also.
The Forum below heard in detail and discussed the entire evidence adduced by both parties and taken a view that the case of the opposite party is that some of the pages of the pass book given by the complainant were substituted by the agent taken out some pages from another account. The attempt of the opposite parties is to be left the responsibility of the agent. The Forum below found that it is to be noted that each entry in the pass book bears the signature of the post office and the postal seal. There is no case for the opposite party that the deposit entries are not attested by the officer of the post office. If the agent did not entrust the amounts collected from the complainant at the post office, then it is not known how the office can make entries in the pass book and attested the same with post office seal. The pass book being the primary record of the post office made the opposite party liable to pay the complainant for the maturity amount. The complainant had issued lawyer notice Ext. A3 and though it was repaid by Ext. A5. The opposite parties have not taken any action to redress the grievances of the complainant. The Forum below found that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The Forum below allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order. This order was challenged by the opposite parties through this appeal.
On this day this appeal came before this commission the authorized agent of the appellants is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The authorized representative vehement ally argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the MPK BY agent was appointed by the District collector and that the appellants have no control over the agent that the agent Sasikala also, the District Collector, Block development officer are necessary parties to the complainant before the Forum below. But the Forum by their order dated 24.6.2004 in I.A. No. 317/2004 filed along with the complainant was dismissed. The I.A is having a prayer to implead the parties. The authorized agent also submitted that; according to the Rules that the pass book shall verify by the depositor, within 15 days of the deposit. The complainant is also responsible for non credit of the amount by the agent. The authorized representative submitted that to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He argued that the order passed by the Forum below is not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. He cited the decision from the national commission, Union of India Vs. Shanker(A) No. 366 of 2001 dated 21st April, 2010. But this down loaded pages of the judgment no where discussed the very similar fact of this case. It is entirely different from the fact of this case. But this judgment not any way substantiates the argued of appellants in this case. In this case it is a very clear that the complainant remitted the entire amount through the agent of the Post office and directly in the post office. This is a National Savings Scheme. It is nothing but a banking business. The post office is not offering any welfare service or incentives to the complainant. She attracted the Post Office Savings Scheme due to its credibility and joined in the scheme. Otherwise she has other options to deposit either in bank or other financial investments. But the complainant preferred the post office as the most reliable and credible systems of the government of India. She deposited her hard earnings in this scheme. She need not bother about the agent. It is the duty of the Post Office/ National Savings Department or the government authorities to ensure that the agents are reliable persons and if necessary asked them to deposit caution amounts for the protections of the ordinary depositors. This commission is not seeing that no action was taken against the agent concerned and recovered amount from her. We heard the authorized representatives and perused the entire evidence from the case bundle and find that order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and there is no apparent error is seeing in this order to interfere. We uphold this order. It is the duty of the appellant and their subordinates to verify the entries of the pass book and other registers periodically. In this case their responsibility was put on the consumer/complainant.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own expenses. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
[ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] PRESIDING MEMBER