State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India And Another vs Sh. Gurvinder Singh on 23 June, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Gurvinder Singh
.....Respondent / Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Jasvinder Singh
.....Respondent / Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Smt. Beeri Kaur
.....Respondent / Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sardar Harminder Singh
.....Respondent / Complainant
FIRST APPEAL NO. 36 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Smt. Jasbir Kaur
.....Respondent / Complainant
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 / 2007
Union of India and another
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Smt. Maninder Kaur and another
All R/o 3266 Govind Pura, Haldwani
District Nainital
.....Respondents / Complainants
Sh. A.K. Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Devender Pant, Learned Counsel for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 23/06/2008
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
All these appeals arise out of the cases, in which the respective contentions of the parties were common, hence these are taken together for disposal on merit.
2. Orders impugned in these appeals are dated 08.01.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nainital and were passed in consumer complaint Nos. 91 / 2004; 89 / 2004; 87 / 2004; 88 / 2004; 90 / 2004 and 86 / 2004. All the complainants in these cases are closely related and have their common residential address, as is evident from the description of the array of the parties. All the consumer complaints were partly allowed and postal department was directed to pay to each of these complainants, the amount shown deposited in their respective Recurring Deposit Account passbooks together with interest from the due dates @9% p.a. together with damages of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards cost. In each these cases, the amount found deposited in the ledger maintained by the postal department, 3 was less than the entries of the deposit made in the passbooks and further that certain amounts were withdrawn, which were denied by the complainants.
3. The District Forum, in four of the cases, also obtained expert report on handwriting from government lab and on that basis, opined that the admitted signatures of the complainants do not tally with the disputed signatures of the complainants on respective withdrawal forms and on that basis, rejected the postal department's contention in that regard. The recurring deposits were made at Head Post Office, Haldwani, where cases of embezzlement of the funds and the deposits of the investors by the employees, were alleged and departmental investigation was initiated. Since a big fraud was found involved, the case was reported to the CBI, Dehradun and after usual sanction, the investigation was started by CBI in that matter and the same is still pending for submission of report by the said agency.
4. Postal department also took the plea that these complainants, despite request, failed to submit original passbooks for investigation and on perusal of the xerox copies of the passbooks, it was noticed that these bear large number of postal stamps of same dates, i.e., 23.05.2001 and 04.07.2002, while the actual dates of the deposit shown in the xerox copy of the passbooks were also interpolated. The matching entries of the deposits were not available in the ledger of the postal department and, as such, the contention was raised on behalf of the postal department that the matter being under investigation, so as to uncover the fraud committed in regard to the deposits etc., the complainants were not entitled to be refunded the amount of deposits per their passbook entries on the ground of deficiency in service in making the refund of the money to the complainants.
45. The District Forum, on the basis of its appreciation of the respective submissions of the parties and the material on record, accepted the claims of the complainants, by observing that the postal department made deficiency in service in not permitting the refund of the entire amount of the deposits as entered there in the passbooks of the complainants and further held the department liable for putting the complainants to mental harassment and agony and went on to partly allow the consumer complaints in order to have the amount of deposits per passbook entries, to be paid to the complainants with interest together with damages and cost, as stated above.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered their submissions in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal aspect of the matter in issue. It is not in dispute that the fact of embezzlement and fraud having been committed in regard to the deposits at Head Post Office, Haldwani, the matter initially was investigated by the department and later on, the investigation of the case was entrusted to CBI, Dehradun, which has not yet completed the investigation and submitted its report. The original records of all these cases were summoned from the District Forum, so as to enable us to peruse the original passbooks of the complainants, keeping in view the stand taken by the postal department that large number of entries in the passbooks bear postal stamps of same dates and some interpolations were also made in the passbooks. Having gone through the original passbook on record of all these cases, we find ourselves in agreement with the stand taken by the postal department. It does not stand to reason as to how large number of entries of the deposits were made at one and the same time and against the postal stamps of the same date. There can be no gain saying that the fraud was involved in the matter of making the relevant entries of the deposits or withdrawals of the amounts by the 5 officials of the postal department, either individually or in concert with the depositors, in order to put the department to unlawful loss and to usurp or embezzle the funds for their own benefit. Under these circumstances and particularly when the matter is under investigation by Special Crime Branch and also in view of the fact that repeated entries in the passbooks having postal stamp of the same date, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the postal department that the District Forum was not justified in directing the department to pay the amounts to the complainants per deposit entries in their original passbooks, contrary to the admitted recurring deposit amounts of these complainants only and to relegate the complainants to seek recovery of remaining amount by filing civil suits before appropriate court. It is well settled that the handwriting expert's opinion is only a corroborative piece of evidence and the factum as regard to the forged money withdrawal forms alleged to have been submitted by the complainants and money withdrawn, could have effectively been decided after examination of these complainants in evidence, so that the postal department may have had an opportunity to cross-examine them also in regard to the disputed question of fact. Consumer Foras exercise summary jurisdiction and complicated question of law and fact, which involve submission of forged withdrawal forms and fraud also in the matter of the deposits, could not have effectively been decided in Consumer Fora's summary jurisdiction. We, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the postal department that the District Forum at best could have partly allowed these consumer complaints for recovery of the admitted recurring deposit sums and the complainants were to be relegated to file civil suits for recovery of remaining amount alleged to have been deposited by them. Since fraud was involved in the matter of deposits and withdrawals, we also feel inclined to accept the submission that the complainants were not to be awarded any 6 damages for mental agony and harassment and further that the expenses of litigation awarded, were also on the excessive side.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the orders impugned cannot legally be maintained as such and are liable to be modified accordingly. In other words, all these appeals succeed partly.
8. All these appeals are partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 08.01.2007 passed in consumer complaint Nos. 91 / 2004; 89 / 2004; 87 / 2004; 88 / 2004; 90 / 2004 and 86 / 2004, are modified and the postal department is held liable to make payment to the complainants of the admitted amount of recurring deposits together with the interest, at the rate payable under the relevant rules, till the date of the payment together with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is open to the complainants to file civil suits for recovery of the remaining amount, if any, before appropriate court, which may consider exclusion of the time bonafidely taken in these proceedings under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute; 1995 (3) SCC 583 = 1995 CTJ 289. The payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. Cost of the appeals made easy.
9. Let the copy of the judgment be kept on the record of Appeal Nos. 32 / 2007; 34 / 2007; 35 / 2007; 36 / 2007 and 37 / 2007.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal