State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Director Of Postal Services vs Menaben M Meghval on 12 May, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 12 05 2022
Date of filling 05 03 2021
Duration 07 02 01
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Court-2
APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2021
1. Director of Postal Services,
Post Master General, Vadodara Region,
Opp. Pavanveer Apartment,
Pratapganj,
Dist: Vadodara,
2. Superintendent of Post Office,
Panchmahal Division,
Old Post Office,
Near B-Division Police Station,
Ta: Godhra,
Dist: Panchmahal
3. Post Master,
Near Old Bus Stand,
Juhapura Vegetarian Market,
Ta: Godhra,
Dist: Panchmahal. ...Appellant
(Ori. Opponent)
Vs.
1. Menaben Malabhai Meghval
Meghaval Fadiyu,
Behind G.E.B.
Lilesara,
Godhra
Dist: Panchmahal
2. The Collector,
Panchmahal,
Zilla Seva Sadan No.1,
Collector Kacheri Compound,
Ta: Godhara,
Dist: Panchmahal ...Respondents
(No. 1 Ori. Complainant &
Resd. No.2 Ori. Opp. No.4)
Appearance: Ld. Advocate H.D. Shukla
for the appellant,
Ld. Advocate Mr. J.N. Patel
for the respondent.
B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 1 of 6
Coram: Shri M. J Mehta, Judicial Member
Shri R.N. Mehta, Member Order by Shri M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the DCDRC, Panchmahal at Godhra in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2018.
2. The appellant has preferred instant appeal on the grounds that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and bad in law. The parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature for the sake of the convenience.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:
Complainant has purchased Kishan Vikash Pratra (herein after referred to as KVP) is in disputes, which are mentioned as under: -
No. Certi No. Deposit Amount Maturing Amount on Cate date maturing date
1. 02BC 614353 19.07.03 5000/- 18.02.12 10,000/-
2. 21CD850736 19.07.03 10,000/- 18.02.12 20,000/-
3. 21CD850737 19.07.03 10,000/- 18.02.12 20,000/-
Total Rs. 50,000/-
said KVP maturity dates were 18.02.2012 but the same KVP were encashed by one agent Mr. Rajeshbhai Trivedi, according to complainant case it was given to agent for renewal procedure B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 2 of 6 However, Mr. Rajeshbhai Trivedi has withdrawn the KVP and left the Godhara city and thereafter, the complaint lodged against Mr. Rajeshbhai Trivedi and to inquire about the KVP complainant made an application before the Ori.
Opp. no.3 post master Godhra, and Opp. No.3 informed that the inquiry is going on and gave the assurance that after the inquiry the amount of KVP will be paid to him, but till the date final maturity amount of the said KVP was not availed to the complainant.
4. Postal department never encashes the maturity amount of KVP without any authorized person or any procedure adopted by them, here in this case the KVP was encashed by Mr. Rajesh Trivedi who was SAS agent.
5. Ultimately, District Commission has awarded Rs. 50,167/- from the date of 27.03.2012 at the 6% interest to the complainant.
6. Today Ld. Advocate Mr. H.D. Shukla has argued before us that Mr. Rajesh Trivedi has no concern with the postal department because he was appointed by collector of concern District and that's why as Mr. Rajesh Trivedi is not servant of the postal department no liability can be casted upon to the postal department for the withdrawal of the maturity amount of the questioned KVP.
7. Ld. Advocate Mr. J. N. Patel on behalf of the original complainant has drawn my attention at B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 3 of 6 page no.7 of the order by District Commission wherein postal department has produced a copy of cheque registrar before the Consumer Commission but it does not disclose anything to establish that the cheque is given to the complainant or due process are adopted here and therefore, under which circumstances Mr. Rajesh Trivedi has got payment through cheque is a question of liability casted upon by the postal department.
8. District Commission has observed that no procedure adopted for the payment of questioned maturity amount of the KVP and thereby the postal department is liable to realize the amount because un-authorized person successfully obtained amount from the postal department.
9. According to our view that the postal department is working under the strict rules and regulation framed under the law and thereby procedure is required to be adopted, here it is established on record that no such procedure is followed.
10. On query by my colleague Mr. R.N. Mehta, Ld. Advocate for the postal department Mr. Shukla has submitted that SAS type of authorized agent is having only a right under the license given him to deposit or withdraw the amount here if we looked into the factual aspect, it is very well enlightened that the procedure adopted by him is not as per the license given to the Mr. Rajesh Trivedi, then how payment of B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 4 of 6 maturity amount of KVP are allowed to withdraw without following any due process.
11. Postal staff was having the knowledge that Mr. Rajesh Trivedi was not allowed for withdrawal of the amount from the account or any KVP, therefore, we came to conclusion that it is negligency on the part of the postal department to give payment to un-authorized person.
12. Ld. District Commission has rightly come to view that it is deficiency in services because postal department is a responsible for an amount deposited with them, and postal department is a guardian till the amount is withdrawn after a due process, that's why here considering the factual aspect and legal point of view, and as we have elaborately discussed it is the negligency on the part of the postal department.
13. Therefore, we are of the opinion that postal department are liable to realize the KVP maturity amount as per the complaint and at the rate of 6% we do not want to interfere with the judgement of the District Commission, Hence the following order is passed.
FINAL ORDER
i) Appeal No. 238 of 2021 is dismissed.
B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 5 of 6ii) The judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the DCDRC, Panchmahal at Godhra in Consumer Complaint No. 37 of 2018 is confirmed.
iii) No order as to cost here in appeal.
iv) The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification of the appellants by Account payee cheques and the cheques be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellants after obtaining receipt.
v) Registry is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to the parties, and send a copy this judgment to the DCDRC, Panchmahal at Godhra through E-mail in PDF format for taking necessary action.
Pronounced in the open court on 12th May,2022.
(R.N. Mehta) (M.J. Mehta)
Member Judicial Member
B.H.Gadhavi A-21-238 Page 6 of 6